Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Naval Base, Invergordon

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement on the future of Invergordon naval base.

The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The decision to reduce the naval base at Invergordon was taken with reluctance in the interests of economy. This is only one of a number of similar reductions which have been or are to be made throughout our organisation in an effort to streamline the shore support of the Navy. Apart from the Oil Fuelling Depot, which will be kept in active use, the facilities at Invergordon will either be disposed of or put into care and maintenance. I can assure my hon. Friend that we know how serious this decision is to the people of Invergordon, and I promise him that we will do all we can to help them.

Mr. MacLeod: I should like first of all to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and wish him every success. Does he realise that the burgh of Invergordon feels that there is a moral obligation on the Admiralty to do all it can to lighten this blow to the area, to see that those who will become unemployed get employment in other work, to ensure that there will not be any stagnation of buildings but that they will be let for industrial development wherever possible, and also to see that the central pier will be handed back in the condition in which it was taken over, as it is now in very bad repair indeed?

Mr. Galbraith: We are well aware of the considerations which have prompted

my hon. Friend to raise this matter. As I stated, we will do everything we possibly can to limit the effects of the with drawal of naval facilities from Invergordon.

Oil Surveys (West Africa)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what information has been collected by the Admiralty survey vessel H.M.S. "Owen" on the feasibility of loading oil tankers by sea-loading submarine line off the coast of the eastern delta of the River Niger; what quantities of oil have been found at Olvitiri or in other areas of Nigeria; and to what extent the Government of Nigeria are participating in these operations.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): Information about the depth of water, the nature of the sea bed, tides and weather has been made available to Shell Tankers Ltd. on whose behalf H.M.S. "Owen" undertook the survey. It is for this firm to assess whether the project is feasible.
I understand from my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary that oil has been found at Oloibiri, but it is not possible to say in what quantities until the results of the production tests are known which are to be undertaken later this year. Oil has also been found at Afam, where preliminary drilling continues.
Vessels of the Federal Government of Nigeria assisted H.M.S. "Owen" with the surveying work, but neither the Federal Government nor the Eastern Regional Government in Nigeria participated in the mining operations.

Mr. Brockway: In welcoming the Minister to his post, may I ask him whether he will, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, very seriously consider this development of oil in West Africa in order to avoid the conditions which have arisen in the Middle East, and will he particularly look at the possibilities of extending the association of the local government and of the co-operative movement with these enterprises?

Mr. Soames: The Admiralty rôle has been limited to the survey of the area,


and I know that the Colonial Office has very much in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the fact that Nigeria is the largest British Colony in Africa, with over 30 million people. and is well on the way towards self-government, is it not desirable now, as my hon. Friend has said, that the Government and people of Nigeria should be associated closely with this work, and ought not the Minister to give consideration to that?

Mr. Soames: That is a question for the Colonial Office.

War-time Oil Stocks, Far East (Compensation Claim)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the position with regard to the claim by oil companies for compensation for oil stocks that disappeared in the closing stages of the war in the Far East in 1945; and if he will name the oil companies concerned.

Mr. Soames: It was decided on legal advice not to appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment referred to in the Answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 4th June, 1956. That claim has, therefore, been met. The names of the claimants were N.V. de Bataafsche Petrloeum Maatschappij and N.V. Nederlandsindische Aardolie Maatschappij and N.V. Standard-Vacuum Petroleum Maatschappij.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people in this country who feel that the oil companies have had far too much money already from the British people? Can he tell us how much money has been paid over in this case?

Mr. Soames: The sum involved is £724,000. Although the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, the fact remains that this was a legal decision by which we are bound to abide.

Oil Bunkering Facilities, Gibraltar (Commercial Users)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what decisions have been reached in the discussions in respect of the allocation of oil bunkerage space from Government installations in Gibraltar for commercial purposes.

Mr. Galbraith: One of the oil companies primarily concerned in these discussions has recently informed my Department that it is not in a position at present to join in the scheme for commercial sharing of the Admiralty oil bunkering facilities in Gibraltar. The situation arising from this development is being studied in conjunction with the Government of Gibraltar, the Colonial Office and other Departments concerned.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these discussions were going on three years ago? Will he tell us what has held them up all this time? Is it not a fact that the matter is important to Gibraltar to enable it to compete with the neighbouring Spanish ports?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is incorrectly informed. The negotiations actually started on 18th January, 1956.

Mr. Dodds: I said that discussions were taking place three years ago.

Mr. Galbraith: Negotiations on a commercial basis were begun on 18th January, 1956. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the condition of the oil industry has recently been disturbed by the international situation, and that is what is causing the delay.

H.M. Dockyard, Devonport

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of naval and civilian men and women employed in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, in 1956 and 1957; how many vacancies there are; and in which departments.

Mr. Galbraith: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Miss Vickers: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that Devonport and Plymouth are areas which have unemployment over and above the average? Will he employ as many people as possible in the dockyard, anyhow during the next three months while petrol rationing exists?

Mr. Galbraith: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will take into consideration the needs of all the Royal Dockyards and not merely the requirements in a certain district?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, Sir.

Following is the information:

The following numbers were employed on the dates shown:


—
Naval
Civilians (Industrial and non-industrial)


1st January, 1956.
51
19,391 (includes 563 women)


1st January, 1957.
49
19,423 (includes 566 women)

The number of vacancies is liable to variation from day to day—but on 18th January, 1957, the vacancies in the various dockyard departments totalled 195 as follows:


Constructive Department
…
100


Engineering Department
…
41


Electrical Engineering Department
…
32


Captain of Dockyard's Department
…
6


Naval Stores Department
…
6


Dockyard Police
…
10

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in the planning and construction of the new workshops in the Devonport Dockyard, what consideration has been given to placing them so that they could be used for other industries if they became redundant should there be a cut in the armament programme.

Mr. Galbraith: Our plan for Devon-port Dockyard has been drawn up with the object of achieving maximum productivity in meeting the needs of the Royal Navy. Other considerations have been, and must be, subordinated to that primary aim.

Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Several of the new workshops are now outside the present dockyard wall. Will my hon. Friend consider leaving them outside the wall so that if they become redundant to the dockyard they may be in a position to be used by other industries? Should they once come within the dockyard wall we may be told that it is impossible to use them in that manner.

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly consider that suggestion.

United Kingdom Salvage Unit, Suez (Pay and Conditions)

Miss Vickers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the conditions of service and pay of the men working with the United Kingdom Salvage Unit at Suez.

Mr. Soames: The United Kingdom Salvage Unit consisted of Admiralty ships, manned by officers and men of the Royal Navy and by Admiralty civilian employees of the grades normally employed on such craft, and two chartered vessels.
Naval personnel received naval pay and allowances, including hard lying money, and an allowance for work of an objectionable nature. Admiralty civilian crews received the pay and the allowances appropriate to them when on foreign service, plus a special allowance to compensate for the exceptional conditions associated with their employment. I have no information about the conditions of the crews of the chartered vessels.

Miss Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he agree with me that these men have done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances? When they return to this country, will he consider allowing them some extra pay and extra leave, in particular those who have not been on shore for nearly five months?

Mr. Soames: These men have certainly done a most magnificent job. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Admiralty House, Malta

Major Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements have been agreed with the Government of Malta regarding the future of Admiralty House.

Mr. Galbraith: None, Sir. The matter is still under consideration.

Major Wall: Can my hon. Friend say when he expects to arrive at a solution of this problem?

Mr. Galbraith: No.

Portsmouth Dockyard

Dr. Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he still proposes to continue with the


large-scale expansion of Portsmouth Dockyard.

Mr. Galbraith: Any idea of a large-scale expansion of the dockyard was abandoned several years ago. The city council was made aware in August last of the current plan, which involves the acquisition of only some nine acres of extra land.

Dr. Bennett: Are there not already far too many acres outside the Dockyard for the number of ships they have to serve?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Eastern Mediterranean Fleets (Anglo-American Cooperation)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent British warships co-operate with United States warships in Eastern Mediterranean waters.

Mr. Soames: Quite a lot.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the two fleets cooperated quite a lot during the recent trouble in Suez and whether at any time the British Fleet was threatened by the American Sixth Fleet, as stated by the latest Ministerial arrival at the War Office?

Mr. Soames: During the Suez operations, of course, the two fleets had two different rôles. Within the limits prescribed by those circumstances relations were courteous and cordial.

Mr. Shinwell: Was the consent of Mr. Dulles obtained in order to ensure cooperation between the American Fleet and the British Fleet in the Mediterranean?

Mr. Soames: I think that that would probably be a question for the Foreign Secretary.

Dr. Bennett: Which fleet represented "rock" and which represented "roll"?

Buildings and Properties

Dr. Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what buildings and properties in London his Department still holds or occupies, other than the Admiralty block in Whitehall; and what are the conditions of his tenure of Queen Anne's Mansions.

Mr. Galbraith: I have arranged for the list of properties to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I understand that the Ministry of Works holds Queen Anne's Mansions on a 21-year lease dating from 1947.

Dr. Bennett: Is this mighty place owned on behalf of the Admiralty entirely?

Mr. Galbraith: Queen Anne's Mansions? I think it is, but I should like to confirm that.

Following is the list of properties:—

Property in London owned or leased and occupied by the Admiralty

Furze House, 41, Queen's Gate Terrace, S.W.7.

M/T Depots, Kidbrooke.

Garages, St. Martin's Mews, W.C.2.

Royal Victualling Yard, Deptford.

Supply Reserve Depot, Deptford.

Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (part of).

21, Montpelier Row, Blackheath, S.E.3.

St. Georges House, 195–203, Waterloo Road, S.E.1 (part of).

P.L.A. Buildings, Tower Hill, E.C. (part of). 24–28, Charing Cross Road, W.C.2.

R.N. College, Greenwich, S.E.3.

R.N. Tactical School—Royal Military Academy, Woolwich (part of buildings of Academy).

Greenwich Observatory.

680, Commercial Road, E.I4.

58, Sirdar Road, Notting Hill, W.11.

47, Russell Square, W.C.1 (part of).

City House, White City, Shepherds Bush (part of).

41, The Mall, Ealing, W.5 (part of).

In addition to the foregoing the Admiralty rents certain premises used as furnished quarters by naval ratings serving in the London Area.

Property in London leased or owned by the Ministry of Works but occupied by the Admiralty

Queen Anne's Mansions.

Oxgate Lane, Cricklewood, N.W.2

Rex House, Lower Regent Street (part of).

82, Charing Cross Road, W.C.

111, Penfold Street, N.W.8.

Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street (part of).

24, Kingsway (part of).

Station Approach Buildings, Kidbrooke, S.E.3 (part of).

304, 306–7, Elvedcn Place. Park Royal, N.W.10.

20–21, Cornwall Terrace, N.W.1 (part of).

Audit House, Victoria Embankment, E.C.4 (part of).

43, York Terrace, N.W.1.

Dr. Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will publish a list of the buildings and properties at present occupied or held by his


Department in Hampshire, other than those in the dockyard port of Portsmouth and the Borough of Gosport.

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, Sir, the list will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Bennett: Is it not a fact that there are a great many more stone frigates than steel ones in Hampshire?

Mr. Galbraith: There are more buildings in Hampshire because Portsmouth is our principal naval port and naturally. therefore, the number of outlying buildings there is larger than it is in other parts of the country.

Dr. Bennett: Is there not room for many of them to be now inside the Dockyard?

Hon. Members: Answer.

LIST OF ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS ETC. IN THE COUNTY OF HAMPSHIRE OUTSIDE THE BOROUGHS OF PORTSMOUTH AND GOSPORT.

BOURNEMOUTH COUNTY BOROUGH

Bournemouth: West Howe Torpedo Establishment, Ringwood Road.

DROXFORD RURAL DISTRICT

Portsdown Hill: Admiralty Signal and Radar Establishment.

Southwick: Navigation School (H.M.S. DRYAD), Southwick Park and New Barns, Southwick.

Swanmorc: Salvage and Balloon Depot.

EASTLEIGH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT

Chandlers Ford: Victualling Store Depot. Harnley Road.

FAREHAM URBAN DISTRICT

Fareharn: Internal Combustion Engine Depot, Blackbrook Farm.

Fareharn: Office Accommodation, Old Manor House, High Street.

Fareham: R.N. Electrical Training School (H.M.S. COLLINGWOOD).

Fareham: Victualling Store Depot, Roche Court.

Lee-on-Solent: R.N. Air Station.

Titchfield: Dockyard Storage Depot, Buildings 23 to 26, R.A.F. Station Titchfield.

HAVANT AND WATERLOO URBAN DISTRICT

Emsworth: Metallurgical Laboratory, Emsworth House.

Havant: R.N. Mining Establishment, Westleigh House.

Havant: Works Pound, Stabling Block and outbuilding Warblington Lodge.

Purbrook: Radar and Plotting School, Fort Purbrook.

Waterlooville: R.N. Store Depot, London Road.

KINGSCLERE AND WHITCHURCH RURAL DISTRICT

Kingsclere: C.I.N.O. Proofing Range.

LYMINGTON MUNICIPAL BOROUGH

Keyhaven: Beach Intelligence Research Station, Lymington Coastguard Station.

NEW FOREST RURAL DISTRICT

Hythe: Small Ships Commissioning Base (H.M.S. DILIGENCE).

Marchwood: R.N. Armament Depot.

March wood: Pontoon Store Depot.

PETERSFIELD RURAL DISTRICT

Petersfield: R.N. Signal Training Est. (H.M.S. MERCURY).

ROMSEY AND STOCKBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT

Dean Hill: R.N. Armament Depot.

SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOROUGH

Southampton: Office Accommodation, 8. Bugle Street.

Southampton: Office Accommodation. 7 rooms, 2nd and 3rd Floors, 1A, Bugle Street.

Southampton: Office Accommodation. 6 rooms, 2nd Floor, Prudential Buildings.

Southampton: Office Accommodation. Various rooms in South Western Hotel.

Southampton: R.N.V.R. Solent Division. Site and berthage facilities at No. 14 Berth Southampton Docks.

Southampton: R.N. Store Depot, Provender Store and Yard at Empress Docks.

Southampton: R.N. and R.M. Recruiting Office, 6, Orchard Place. Queens Park Road.

Woolston: R.N. Store Depot.

WINCHESTER MUNICIPAL BOROUGH

Winchester: R.N. and R.M. Recruiting Office, Site near Winchester Station.

WINCHESTER RURAL DISTRICT

Botley: West End Victualling Store Depot. Winchester: W/T Station, Flowerdown.

Worthy Down: Naval Air Electrical School (H.M.S. ARIEL).

Admiralty Employees, Risley

Mr. Boardman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of employees who will be affected by the closure of the Admiralty depot at Risley.

Mr. Galbraith: There are at present some 2,700 Admiralty employees at Risley. The tasks of this depot are due to be reduced gradually over the next eight years or so. Over this long period, normal wastage will make a large contribution to the necessary reduction in numbers, so that it is not possible at this stage to say how many of the staff will be individually affected.

Mr. Boardman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consult the President of the Board of Trade with a view to bringing other industry into this area so as to offset the serious industrial loss which otherwise will occur?

Mr. Galbraith: I will do that.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. This depot happens to be in my constituency, and at the beginning of this year I wrote to the then First Lord asking for information on this issue. On 11th January he wrote back to say that he would give an answer to my letter when he had assembled the information that he thought would be useful. What protection has an hon. Member when an answer is given in the House by another Minister and when a former Minister has promised another lion. Member an answer at the earliest possible time, and when that reply has not yet come?

Mr. Boardman: Further to that point of order, I fancy that my hon. Friend is raising this matter in no way critical of me. It so happens that I supply the labour and he draws the rates.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Member. Sometimes Ministers do not act quite up to the expectations of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have seen that happen many a time in the past twenty-five years. I can only advise the hon. Member to keep on trying.

Mr. Galbraith: I will look into that matter to see if I can do anything.

National Service Men

Mr. Lipton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many National Service men are now serving with the Royal Navy; and how many of them reported for duty in the last call-up.

Mr. Soames: About 10,100 National Service men were serving in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines on 1st January, 1957. Few, if any, of the men from the last registration on 17th November were called up by then. During the last three months of 1956 approximately 1,000 men from earlier registrations were called up for full-time service in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that he has rather wrapped up the figures to make them incomprehensible? Has not the stage now been reached when the solemn powers of calling up people for the Navy under the National Service Act should be abandoned in view of the tiny handful of men who are now being asked to report for duty out of the present numbers that are called up?

Mr. Soames: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not understand what I thought were comparatively simple figures. The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines need 10,000 National Service men, which involves a call-up of 1,200 a quarter, and in the last quarter of last year about 1,000 men were called up.

Suez Canal (Clearance)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) to what extent clearance of the Suez Canal has been further delayed by Egyptian obstruction;
(2) how many salvage ships were assembled by the Admiralty in the Suez Canal area; and how many have been used under the United Nations in clearing the Canal.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will estimate the extent of the delay in clearing the Suez Canal of serious obstruction to navigation attributable to the failure of the United Nations Organisation to make the fullest use of the Anglo-French Salvage Fleet.

Mr. Soames: By mid-December, the Anglo-French Salvage Fleet at Port Said consisted of 19 ships, and another 21 were being held in readiness to go to Port Said or Suez. To the best of our knowledge, the United Nations have assembled 17 salvage ships. None of these figures includes tugs.
If the Anglo-French Salvage Fleet had been allowed to proceed with the clearance beyond El Cap from November onwards, the Canal would probably have been cleared for shipping by the middle of this month, certainly by the end of this week.
Our Salvage Fleet has, however, cleared two channels for the largest shipping at Port Said with remarkable speed and


efficiency in the face of considerable difficulties. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join me in paying a tribute to the magnificent efforts of our salvage forces.

Captain Pilkington: Would my hon. Friend agree that all these facts show how much better it would have been for the whole world if the United Nations and the United States had supported this country and France not only in stopping the war but also in securing a guaranteed settlement for the Canal? Can he say in present circumstances whether there are hopeful prospects of getting the Canal open soon?

Mr. Soames: As far as we know, there are no technical reasons why General Wheeler's timetable for getting a channel clear through the whole length of the Canal by the end of March should not be adhered to.

Mr. Bottomley: Whilst joining in the tributes to the men engaged in the salvage service and wishing them all well, may I ask whether the Minister is not aware that, due to the hostility created in the area, the probability is that British salvage ships could not have been used without hostilities bringing them to a stop ultimately and, therefore, his forecast would have been wrong?

Mr. Soames: We have no evidence to show that.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Quite apart from the difference of opinion on our intervention in Egypt, does not a heavy responsibility rest on those at the United Nations who have refused to make the fullest use of this splendid fleet in the interests of international shipping?

Mr. Soames: Certainly it is a great pity that our ships have not been used, because the Canal would have been cleared earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Nuclear Power Propulsion

Major Wall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he will make a statement regarding the progress of atomic propulsion for merchant vessels;
(2) whether he will make a statement about the progress of the construction of a British atomic-powered submarine.

Mr. Galbraith: As was stated in First Lord's Explanatory Statement on Navy Estimates last year (Command 9697), scientists and naval officers serving at the Atomic Energy Establishment at Harwell have for some years been collecting the knowledge necessary for the application of nuclear power to marine propulsion.
Detailed work on the design of a prototype submarine nuclear powered installation, which is shore based, is now well advanced, and some orders for the prototype machinery have been placed. It is planned to construct a basically similar plant for installation and extensive trials in a sea-going submarine. Experimental work on shielding problems is also proceeding at Harwell.
The wider question for further application of nuclear power to ships for both the Royal and Merchant Navies is being carefully studied, and encouraging progress has been made with feasibility studies.
The Admiralty, which has in the past successfully pioneered other forms of ship propulsion, is fully alive to the commercial opportunities opened by these new developments.

Major Wall: While thanking my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply, may I ask him whether, if the American Navy is already operating nuclear powered submarines which can use guided missiles, he will agree that it seems probable that the atomic powered submarine, as it is developed, may attain a submerged speed which may enable it to outstrip all surface vessels and that, in view of this, it may supplant all our normal types of warship? Will he, therefore, press ahead as hard as possible to ensure that we have one of these submarines operating as soon as possible?

Mr. Galbraith: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better table another Question about the American submarines. As I stated, we are pressing ahead as hard as we can with our own nuclear propulsion research.

Mr. Bottomley: While I appreciate that all the research work which is being carried out at Harwell is towards a common objective, can the hon. Gentleman assure us that in regard to research in respect of merchant shipping and research in respect of ships for the Royal Navy there is the fullest co-operation in order to obtain the best results?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance.

Commander Maitland: Has there been any co-operation with the United States of America in regard to either of these projects?

Mr. Galbraith: I should like notice of that question.

Output and Steel Supplies

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has considered the representations of shipbuilders that the disappointing launch output of 1956 was due to a shortage of materials; that the whole tempo of production would be increased by an adequate supply of steel coming into the yards in proper sequence; and what steps he proposes taking to meet the needs of the ship. builders.

Mr. Galbraith: I am aware from discussions which my right hon. and noble Friend's predecessor had with the shipbuilding industry that there is capacity for greater output given more steel. I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave last week to Questions put down by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and others and to the Answer I am giving today to questions by the hon. Members for Sunderland, South and Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister realise that the total shipbuilding orders in hand, the new orders for 1957, and the production of steel, are better than they have been for a long while? Will he not realise that the fault lies with his Department in that it is failing to ensure that steel is delivered to the yards at the proper time and in proper sequence, and that, consequently, it contributed towards the lower production last year?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot for one moment accept that it is the fault of my Department.

Mr. Rankin: It is.

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot accept that. We are doing everything we can to increase the amount of steel which is going to the shipyards. We have been doing that. and shall continue to do it.

Mr. P. Williams: As my hon. Friend's Department has been trying to do this for five or ten years, what signs are there of any success being achieved in the next five or ten years?

Mr. Galbraith: I think my hon. Friend will find that this year there will be improvements compared with last year.

Mr. Willey: While I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), is the Minister aware that steel supplies improve every time we raise the subject in the House, and that what we want is a continuation of the improved supplies and not sporadic improvement followed by relaxation?

Mr. Galbraith: I am very well aware of the problem. As I have said, the Admiralty has already been doing, and is continuing to do, everything it possibly can to get the steel industry to supply more steel for the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friends with a view to bringing before the House, probably in reply to a sponsored Question, an answer about the allocation of steel to the shipbuilding industry? We really cannot go on year after year having read out official briefs which always give the same reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position is now complicated because the tankers now proposed to be built are of increased tonnage, and, therefore, the demand for steel plate is increased?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, sir.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that deliveries are likely to be greatly accelerated now that the steel industry has got rid of the bugbear of nationalisation?

Later—

Mr. Rankin: I beg to give notice, having had second thoughts, that I shall raise on the Adjournment the matters pertaining to my Question.

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the discussions with the shipyard industries about steel supplies have now been completed; and if he will make a further statement.

Mr. Galbraith: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave on 23rd January to Questions put down by the hon. Member and other hon. Members, but I would refer him to the reply given by the Paymaster-General on Monday to a Question put down by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).

Mr. Wiley: Can the Civil Lord say how far the resort to physical controls has been successful and whether that is helping? Can he also assure the House that this year the British shipbuilding industry will reach an output of 1¾ million tons?

Mr. Nabarro: Very woolly, Willey; very woolly.

Mr. Galbraith: As I said in reply to the Question last week, the discussions initiated as a result of the meetings between the First Lord and the President of the Board of Trade are still in progress.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the fact that the Admiralty assume the responsibility for this but have no powers in the matter at all, and that if the steelmasters decide that they do not intend to supply the shipyards with steel there is no power on earth, in the Admiralty or outside, to compel them to do so?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Unless we renationalise steel.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman say how far the system of the licensing of exports is proving successful in helping the shipbuilding industry? Or does he not know?

Mr. Callaghan: He does not know.

Mr. Galbraith: There has been a reduction in exports of 50,000 tons, and that is obviously helping.

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps he has recently taken to improve the delivery of steel to shipyards in correct sequence.

Mr. Galbraith: Deliveries in better sequence would be made easier by ample supplies, and my right hon. and noble Friend is doing his best to secure them.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to ship repair work, which makes comparatively little

demand on steel, in view of the allegations which are being made that British ships are going to continental ports to be repaired there with British steel?

Mr. Galbraith: I understand that, so far as the repair of the tanker fleet is concerned, the position is quite satisfactory.

Mr. Callaghan: As I could not get an answer to my last supplementary question, may I now ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us, if the powers of oral persuasion fail, what other recourse he has, what remedies he has, to ensure that the shipyards get the steel they want?

Mr. Galbraith: I think it a good idea to wait and see what the powers are.

Sir R. Jennings: Will my hon. Friend continue to co-operate with the steel mills and the shipbuilding industry of this country to keep the supplies of steel plates going to the shipyards, which is the most important thing we all in this House want?

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the practical difficulties which make it impossible to eliminate altogether incorrect sequence of deliveries of steel to the shipyards.

Mr. Galbraith: The steel makers find difficulty in aligning the programme of their rolling mills with the requirements of individual customers. This difficulty is made worse in times of general shortage like the present, but it should be reduced to very small proportions once steel for the shipyards is in ample supply.

Mr. P. Williams: Whilst recognising the difficulties of the makers of the steel, and whilst recognising the need, of which my hon. Friend spoke just now, to increase the production of steel as much as possible, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he would not agree that one of the difficulties over long-range planning in the steel mills is the threat of nationalisation?

Mr. H. Hynd: What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by talking about "this time of shortage"? Is there not a record production of steel?

Mr. Galbraith: I understand that in spite of the record production demand is still greater than supply.

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he continues to answer Questions about the allocation of steel when it is assumed he has no powers?

Mr. Callaghan: He has no powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Dartford

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Postmaster-General how many applicants for telephones linked to the Dartford Exchange have yet to be provided with a service; and how long he anticipates it will be before this list can be cleared.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): Four hundred and eighty-two.
New cables are being provided and the exchange equipment is being extended to use the full capacity of the building. Most of the present applicants will be given service this year. But there is a steady new demand, so I cannot say when the waiting list will finally be cleared. The building needs to be extended, and this is planned to start next June.

Argentina and Brazil Services

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has made to the telephone companies operating radio-telephone circuits with Argentina and Brazil with a view to improving the telephone service with these countries and with what result.

Mr. Marples: Repeated proposals have been made to the telephone companies for longer services at more convenient times of the day. So far the companies have unfortunately not been able to arrange this, because their equipment has to be used for other services also. Further negotiations on possible measures to meet the need for improvement are now going on.

Mr. Davies: Whilst appreciating that the Postmaster-General has been taking steps to improve these services, does he fully appreciate at what inconvenient hours they are available, at great inconvenience to a large number of business men?

Mr. Marples: I realise that, Sir. although there have been no complaints

from the Government Departments concerned—that is, the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office—we have asked the companies for two hours' longer service to both Argentina and Brazil. They have offered twenty-five minutes to Brazil only. We are pressing for more, and I am hoping to see them.

Mr. Hobson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time that serious consideration was given to the laying of a submarine cable in the same way as has been done between New York and Great Britain and between Plymouth and South Africa in view of the developing traffic?

Mr. Marples: I will look into that, but there are negotiations going on now, both with the United States and Canada, in connection with the laying of further trans-oceanic submarine cables.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Unperforated Stamps (Sale)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Postmaster-General if in view of the circumstances surrounding the recent sale of 240 unperforated 2d. stamps in the Post Office at Dartford, he will now arrange to issue a limited but undisclosed number of further unperforated sheets of the same denomination.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will have printed a sufficient number of sheets of unperforated 2d. stamps to reduce to a reasonable level the value to collectors of the sheet issued recently by a London Post Office.

Mr. Marples: The answer is, "No, Sir."

Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Postmaster-General aware that in 1934, in somewhat similar circumstances, the American Postmaster General adopted this expedient and made a very handsome revenue for the Post Office as a result?

Mr. Marples: I went carefully into the precedent set by Mr. Farley, the United States Postmaster General. I will not comment upon it, but I should like to read what I found in "The United States


Postage Stamps of the Twentieth Century," Volume IV, which states:
Postmaster General Farley, who handed about one million dollars' worth of rare postage stamps to his friends and thereby made enemies of all other stamps collectors, today tried to square himself with all concerned. Mr. Farley paid the Government 3 cents. each for his gift stamps, but they became worth 2,500 dollars a piece to collectors because of their scarcity, and almost caused a Congressional investigation.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to follow the same method as Mr. Farley.

Mr. Thomson: Whilst this was a particularly shabby and objectionable case, is the Postmaster-General aware that it is by no means an isolated instance? There are twelve unperforated stamps of the last reign in existence and stamp collectors all over the world are beginning to doubt the genuineness of British stamps. Would he not look into the matter further to see whether he can restore the reputation of British stamps in the philatelic world?

Mr. Marples: I disagree. I think that this is an isolated instance. I have been into the flatter very carefully, and I think that the reputation of British stamps in the world is pretty high.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the precedent set by the Minister, will we also be permitted to read from books at Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: It has always been permitted, within limits, to read quotations.

Mr. Jeger: Has the Postmaster-General not heard of the Prime Minister's call for greater production, and will he not answer the call?

Mr. Marples: I think the Prime Minister was referring to other matters where there will be, of course, greater production.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Postmaster-General at the time at which the sheet of imperforate 2d. stamps recently sold at Dartford escaped perforation, how many other similar sheets also escaped perforation.

Mr. Marples: None so far as is known.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to see that the events leading recently to the sale of imperforate stamps

from the Dartford Post Office do not recur.

Mr. Marples: Mistakes which are due to human failures cannot be entirely avoided, but the checking arrangements at the printing works have been further strengthened and the staff at local post offices reminded of the importance of withdrawing any imperfect stamps.

Mr. Irving: Would the Postmaster-General agree that it is not in the public interest that individuals should make huge gains in this way? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?" I Would he examine the law to see whether the title of the gentleman concerned is a good one? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the action of his Department contributed in some way to the intolerable burden of Press pressure on this 16-year-old girl by placing her under a pledge of secrecy, under which she behaved very well indeed?

Mr. Marples: The question of the ownership of the stamps would have to be decided in a court of law, and it is thought inadvisable to pursue that course. Contractual responsibility rests with the stamp printers to see that only perfect stamps and material are supplied to the Post Office. The best that the Post Office can do is to overhaul the inspection arrangements to ensure that this does not happen again.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend not take this too heavily? Does he not agree that this would be a drab and dreary world if these romantic things did not happen occasionally?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman decline the request to encourage these romantic things happening inside the Post Office? In view of the fact that this is the only occasion on which it has happened in 25 years, does he not agree that it reflects great credit on the Post Office?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. There has been a question about the girl. She has been reprimanded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"1—but the profit that she has made she has handed to charity. She was reprimanded because she disobeyed Post Office instructions.

Hon. Members: A scapegoat.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Does not the Postmaster-General think that we are making very heavy weather of this matter?

Mr. Marples: I agree, Sir. In my view this is an isolated incident, and the sooner it is forgotten the better.

Under-Paid Airmail Letters

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make arrangements for airmail letters insufficiently prepaid with the sender's name on the envelope to be returned to the sender rather than sent by ordinary mail to their destination.

Mr. Marples: I do not think the public would welcome the arrangement suggested. At present comparatively few under-paid airmail letters with the sender's name and address on the envelope are sent on by surface route. The great majority of such letters are already forwarded by air: the Post Office makes up the postage and asks the sender to refund the money.

Mr. Harrison: Whilst thanking the Postmaster-General for that reply, may I ask whether he can have instructions sent round to post offices that when they send these letters by ordinary mail they will advise the sender? Is he aware that I know of cases where manufacturers have lost export orders through the mistake of their clerical staff in not putting the right amount of postage on the envelopes?

Mr. Marples: That would probably mean an addition to manpower which might not be justified, but I will look into the matter. If at least 75 per cent. of the airmail fee, that is, the difference between surface and airmail postage, is paid the letter is sent by airmail.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

R.A.A.F. Squadrons (Disbandment)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air why it was not possible to convert flights of the Royal Auxiliary

Air Force fighter squadrons into reserve flights attached to regular fighter squadrons, and thus make use of the enthusiasm and efficiency of these Auxiliary units.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Air what consideration he has given to the proposal that members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force should be integrated with regular fighter squadrons and that Auxiliary pilots should do their week-end training on regular squadron aircraft; if he is aware that economies could by this means still be effected whilst retaining the skill and enthusiasm of most of the members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): For the reasons which I gave last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert), the Government have decided, with the greatest possible regret, that it is necessary to disband all squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force except twenty Fighter Control Units and one Radar Reporting Unit.
In many cases it has been possible to offer Auxiliary officers and airmen opportunities of further service on the ground, either in those Fighter Control Units which are being retained or in Reserve flights at R.A.F. stations near their homes. I am glad to say that the indications are that many of them will continue to serve in this way.
Had it been possible I should, of course, have welcomed a scheme under which Auxiliary pilots and ground personnel could have been associated as squadrons or flights with regular fighter squadrons. But examination has shown that any such scheme would be very costly and it would involve a heavy commitment in regular manpower. Certain other suggestions have been put to me but they are all unacceptable for either operational, administrative or financial reasons. I am therefore going ahead with the present decision to retain the services of Auxiliary officers and airmen only where we can accept them for specific vacancies in the war establishment.
I should like to make it clear that the decision in no way reflects on the enthusiasm or flying ability of Auxiliary


pilots. They could only be retained however by standing down fully trained regular pilots.

Air Commodore Harvey: is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel sorry for him, as a former Auxiliary pilot, at having to implement this unfortunate decision? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, whether the decision is right or wrong, we feel that the case has been dealt with in a most ham-handed way, and that by throwing away this valuable asset of tremendous voluntary effort Britain may be a great loser? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will not close the door until further propositions are put to him which may cost the Government very little money indeed?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. I think it would be most unfair to these people to offer them any hope of reprieve. This morning I have received the Advisory Committee of the Territorial and Air Forces Association and also the Air League of the British Empire. They put forward several alternative schemes, and I think I was able to convince them that, although some of them were attractive, none is, in fact, possible.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State for Air aware that there are really valuable assets in the skill and enthusiasm of these volunteers, and that it does appear as if they have been thrown away without great consideration? Surely the Government can look at this again to see if some system cannot be devised to make use of the skill of these volunteers, and thus make real, instead of superficial, economies?

Mr. Ward: This is not a decision which has been taken in a hurry. It has been under consideration for a very long time, and every aspect of it has been carefully considered. The voluntary spirit will remain. The door is still open to it in the remaining Fighter Control Units and the R.R.U.s, and also in the reserve flights of the Volunteer Reserve. I am sure that many auxiliaries will show their voluntary spirit by joining those units.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was in some ways an insulting gesture to these men to offer them a job on the ground in the way that was done? Secondly, can the right hon.
Gentleman give some figures as to the amount of extra regular personnel that would be used if the idea of a reserve flight was taken up, because no satisfactory figures have been given. Thirdly, if it is economies the Government are after, would it not have been much better to have looked at the entire question of the need for a fighter command and then to have settled the position of the Auxiliary squadrons in the context of that decision?

Mr. Ward: I cannot, without notice, give the exact number that would be required, but I can say that in order to keep the airfields open at weekends for Auxiliary flying it would be necessary to bring each one up to the establishment of a master diversion airfield, thereby having to duplicate flying control, ambulance, fire service, cooks and everything else, and it would be a very costly business indeed.

Airfield, Maldive Islands

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Air the estimated cost of the proposed reconstruction of the wartime airfield in the Maldive Islands and of the land to be used for the erection of aerials on Hittadu Island and, annually, of the maintenance of British forces on the islands.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to reactivate the air base in the Maldive Islands; and what is the estimated cost of such reactivation.

Mr. Ward: The airfield is to be rebuilt for use as a Royal Air Force staging post. It would be contrary to established Government practice to disclose the estimated cost of reconstruction. The rent for the land, including that for the radio station, will be £2,000 a year. The annual cost of manning the staging post will depend upon the establishment, but is likely to be of the order of £100,000.

Mr. Brockway: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how long this agreement will last, and whether, in the consideration of defence cuts, the question of establishing airfields for defence purposes is being considered to save us from going through what has happened in Cyprus and, it may be, in Aden?

Mr. Ward: This is not, strictly speaking, for a defence purpose. It is a staging


post which will, of course, be used by both military and civil aircraft, and it will be extremely valuable to us in staging either to Australia or the Far East.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister agree that, to a certain degree at any rate, the reactivation of this post is part of the price we are having to pay for the Suez fiasco?

Mr. Ward: No, I disagree entirely. This was under consideration long before the Suez affair blew up.

National Service Men

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many National Service men were trained as aircrew in the Royal Air Force last year; and how many are undergoing training at the present time.

Mr. Ward: The numbers of National Service aircrew who successfully completed training to wings standard in 1956 were 184 pilots and one navigator. The numbers under training at 1st January, 1957, were 296 pilots and 109 navigators.

Air Commodore Harvey: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile these figures with the decision to close down the Auxiliary Air Force squadrons? Surely, the Auxiliary pilots are practically in the front line of defence, whereas the National Service man at the completion of his service is almost a lost asset. Many of us are not happy concerning the future if training is to continue for National Service men while the Auxiliary squadrons are to be disbanded.

Mr. Ward: The figures I have given are apt to be slightly misleading owing to the form of the Question. The first figures relate to the output for 1956 and the second figures to the input, not only for 1956, but for 1957 also. What has happened is that in October we reduced the annual quota for pilots from 300 to 150 a year.

Mr. de Freitas: What will happen to these National Service pilots after they leave the Service if there are no Auxiliary squadrons? What will they do?

Mr. Ward: They will not be able to fly, I quite agree, but I hope that many of them will join the remaining units and play their part on the ground.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEATHER CONDITIONS (SUNSPOT ACTIVITY)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air what advice he has received from his meteorological advisers as to the extent to which weather conditions in this country are indirectly attributable to sunspot activity; and whether, having regard to the more intense sunspot activity expected in 1957, he expects the summer in 1957 to be better or worse than in 1956.

Mr. Ward: Despite work in this country and elsewhere, it has not been possible to establish any direct or indirect relationship between sunspot activity and the weather in this country. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not generally agreed that there is an indirect connection between sunspot activity and the weather, and would my right hon. Friend cause further inquiries to be made through his officers, because, if such a connection could be established, would it not be very useful in the long-range forecasting of weather conditions?

Mr. Ward: I quite agree. If it could be established, it would. Attempts have been made over many years to establish some relationship between sunspots and the weather, but so far, unfortunately, none of these experiments has shown any clear relationship between them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

London—Oxford Road (Land)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what acreage of land is contained in between the carriageways of the new London—Oxford road just south of Oxford; and what is the distance between the carriageways at the widest point.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): About 12½ acres. In order to use the existing carriageway as much as possible, the width of the central reserve had to be increased from 26 ft. to 125 ft. at a few points.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, broadly speaking, this is a serious wastage of agricultural land? In the case of future long-distance roads like this, will he ensure that there is the minimum of wastage? Even in Germany, where the autobahn is probably the most elaborate system of its kind in the world, there is only 11 ft. between the two carriageways.

Mr. Watkinson: I take the point made by my hon. Friend. In building new roads as quickly as possible, however, where we can use the existing carriageway for one part of the dual carriageway we can make much quicker progress.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend look at the second point, that even the second figure he mentioned, which is normal, is probably excessively wide, because it can be done with much less use of land?

Civil Airports (Screens)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps have been taken to create a visual barrier between traffic on roads and civil airports.

Mr. Watkinson: Screens have been erected at a few of the airports managed by my Department where car parking or sightseers on adjacent roads have caused congestion or risk of accident on these roads. If my hon. Friend will let me know whether he has any particular aerodrome in mind. I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. Langford-Holt: May I tell my right hon. Friend that I have no such particular case in mind, but that as a general principle I wish to draw his attention to the fact that it can be dangerous and has proved dangerous on many occasions?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree and am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the number of sightseers now being attracted to all aerodromes is such that more care has to be exercised.

Clayton Road, A.519, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to be in a position to approve

the scheme for widening Clayton Road, A.519, in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid I cannot say at the moment. As the hon. Member is aware, I am not able in present circumstances to give priority to the scheme for widening this road.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Newcastle Council continues to regard this as a very urgent necessity owing to the unfortunate fact that accidents continue to occur on this road? Will he, therefore, continue to bear this matter in mind?

Mr. Watkinson: I will do my best to give it as favourable consideration as I can, but I have said that I am afraid I cannot fit it in at the moment.

Silverdale-Scot Hay Road (Repairs)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recommendation he has made to the Minister of Housing and Local Government about the application for loan sanction by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council for the repair of the road from Silverdale via Crackley Gates to Scot Hay.

Mr. Watkinson: Loan sanction was issued to the borough council on 19th December.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Staggered Working Hours

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action has been taken in regard to the staggering of hours of work to relieve traffic congestion since the introduction of petrol rationing.

Mr. Watkinson: The Committee for the Staggering of Working Hours in Central London has written to 2,000 larger employers asking for information about starting and finishing times of work and numbers of staff involved, and is now working out detailed plans based on the replies. I should like to thank some 30 firms, employing 6,000 staff, which have answered the appeal I made last November by adopting staggered hours in advance of action by the Committee.
Outside Central London the London Transport Executive and the South Eastern Regional Board for Industry


have approached industrial employers to seek further support for staggered hours and have received a satisfactory response.
As a result of the discussion forecast by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Education in his reply of 13th December, the London Transport Executive is considering further with individual education authorities possible adjustments in school hours and transport services.

Mr. Davies: While I appreciate that some action is now being taken in this regard, does the Minister not consider that what has taken place so far, in the light of the present emergency, is quite inadequate? Can he not bring greater pressure to bear upon the firms and undertakings concerned to act more speedily in this matter? Does he not regret that he did not take any action earlier, in view of the fact that last July he stated that he had the intention of appointing the committee but did not appoint it until November, and only now some action is being taken?

Mr. Watkinson: I would not regard the results as inadequate, because, as I know the hon. Gentleman knows, London Transport, for example, has been under much heavier pressure and, on the whole, it has carried its passengers extremely well and without great dislocation. I am, however, grateful to anybody who reminds me that we ought to do more about staggering hours.

Mrs. Jeger: Can the Minister suggest to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government that this task would be helped if he would stop sanctioning the building of any more offices in Central London, where already far larger numbers of people are employed than before the war?

Mr. Watkinson: I am sure my right hon. Friend will take account of what the hon. Lady says.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is to assume the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply. Ministerial responsibility in respect of the British Broadcasting Corporation is unaltered.

Mr. Thomson: In view of the various suspicions which have been aroused about the appointment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, can the Lord Privy Seal give a categorical undertaking that his right hon. Friend will in no way be used to bring Governmental pressure to bear on the B.B.C. either in respect of its home services or in relation to its overseas services?

Mr. Butler: The first point I would make is that there is no change in the statutory responsibilities of the Postmaster-General in relation to both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. under the Charter and Licence and the Independent Television Act, respectively. In answer to the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible for co-ordinating information services as a whole and there is no question of his adopting any attitude such as the hon. Member suggests. He is simply there to assist to the best of his ability in the task allotted to him.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it clear from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have no authority whatsoever to intervene in regard to broadcasting questions?

Mr. Butler: I do not know what is meant by the word "intervene". If my right hon. Friend is to co-ordinate information services as a whole, to say that he will take no part in broadcasting would be quite untrue. Of course, he will take an interest in broadcasting—

Mr. Hamilton: He always does.

Mr. Butler: —but he will not take the place of the Postmaster-General in his statutory responsibilities. He will take an interest in Government publicity services generally.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the Chancellor of the Duchy will form a new association or have a new relationship with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I think he will form a very helpful link with them.

Mr. Ross: The missing link.

Mr. Wade: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? Is the Chancellor of the Duchy concerned with co-ordinating information at home as well as overseas? As far as overseas information is concerned, is it his duty merely to co-ordinate factual statements or is he concerned with the presentation of views and news, which may be a matter of very high Government policy and may have very far-reaching consequences?

Mr. Butler: I ascertained this before answering the Question so as to be quite clear. Overseas Ministers will remain responsible for prescribing the services to be broadcast in the B.B.C. external services, but not, of course, for the content of the broadcasts. All that my right hon. Friend will do is to supply the necessary co-ordination as between home matters and foreign matters, which very often overlap for the very good reason that home matters are frequently referred to in foreign broadcasts.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was to be a link. Are there, then, to be two links between the B.B.C. and the Government, one through the Postmaster-General and the other through the Chancellor? If so, what is the division of function between the two?

Mr. Butler: All the statutory functions will be performed by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, and there will be nothing—I do not doubt that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will wish to know this—to alter the statutory relationship of the Postmaster-General to these authorities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will perform duties not dissimilar to those previously performed by Ministers both in the last Government and in the Government before it, and in the Labour Government, namely, for information services generally. I remember that there was an arrangement under the Labour Government which seemed to work perfectly well. My right hon. Friend is carrying on broadly on the same lines.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the confusion that has arisen after the right hon. Gentleman's replies last week and this week, will he undertake to issue a very

full statement stating precisely the functions and powers of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I will not absolutely refuse to consider the request made by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, because this is a matter into which the greatest clarity should be brought. I am certain that the activities of my right hon. Friend will redound to the credit of Her Majesty's Government and their great success.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Council of Europe and Western European Union

Mr. Doughty: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th February, I shall call attention to the Council of Europe and Western European Union, and move a Resolution.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. I saw about five slips of paper being thrown into the box without being mixed up, Mr. Speaker. The odds are that the hon. Members putting them in last will have their slips chosen.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is very observant. I did not observe it. At one time, it used to be said in the Army, "Shake the bag."

Water Supplies (Developing Industries)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th February, I shall call attention to the urgent need to provide adequate water supplies for developing industries, and move a Resolution.

Expanding Commonwealth

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th February, I shall call attention to the need for an expanding Commonwealth. and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

THERMAL INSULATION (INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the thermal insulation of industrial buildings; and for purposes connected therewith.
It will not be disputed in any part of the House that the national fuel and power position in present circumstances gives rise to grave apprehension. The fact is that our coal production has been almost static during the last five years, and our oil supplies are now precarious, notably our supplies of fuel oil for industry. Energy demand is rising by 10 per cent. per annum, arithmetical progression, and doubling every decade. Finally, though much more roseate hopes have been held out in certain quarters, I think that even if we double our atomic programme for energy purposes it is unlikely that by 1965 we shall be able to supply more than about 10 per cent. of our total energy needs from nuclear sources.
That is a situation which must surely give rise to grave apprehension in every quarter of the House. Moreover, there is no division of opinion that a prosperous national economy most largely depends upon a progressive expansion of productive industry in this country, year by year. In view of the current and prospective fuel and power situation, to which reference has been made on many occasions in the past, it is of supreme importance that our resources of fuel and power must be used and employed with the utmost efficiency. That is not the case in industry today.
I was responsible, in concert with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, for initiating legislation two years ago for clean air, essentially because it was a policy for fuel efficiency. What I am seeking today is exactly complementary to that clean air policy. It is concerned with industrial buildings and the retention of heat in them; heat which has been generated as a result of raising steam for productive, processing and heating purposes within the building. Many millions of tons of coal and fuel

oil are used annually in British industry, for heating purposes. An uninsulated building loses through leakages anything up to 50 per cent. of all the heat that is fed into it for heating purposes.
It follows, therefore, that there is a very grave wastage of our fuel and power resources. I do not wish to be dogmatic about the extent of the wastage. In certain circumstances, owing to the structure of the building, the age of the building, the geography or situation of the building, it may be only a 20 per cent. wastage, but in other circumstances it can be as high as 50 per cent.
What I am seeking to establish this afternoon, in what must be necessarily a very short survey of the position, is that here is a grave wastage of fuel, a wastage which ought to be remedied by Her Majesty's Government, supported by the combined efforts of all hon. Members. To put this matter in its correct perspective, I might add that in the last calendar year, 1956, we put up a record acreage of new industrial buildings. It amounted to no less than 41 million square feet. In the previous year, 1955, we put up 41 million square feet of new industrial buildings, and in the six years between 1951 and 1956, inclusive, we erected 215 million square feet of new industrial buildings.
The significant factor is that out of that 215 million square feet of new industrial buildings, I am advised that no more than 10 per cent. were thermally insulated against heat loss. Thus, 90 per cent. of the buildings were uninsulated and in the whole such 90 per cent., a vast acreage of industrial buildings, we dissipated valuable supplies of fuel and power, amounting to between 25 and 50 per cent. of the fuel consumed for heating purposes.
The present Conservative Government, the previous Conservative Government, the last Socialist Government and the Socialist Government of 1945–50 all gave recognition to this fact in various statements. I will quote just three examples. In the Finance Act, 1956, it is significant that investment allowances were largely withdrawn but were retained on certain classes of fuel efficiency equipment for industry. Most significant of all, under one subsection, investment allowances were retained for the cost of insulating industrial buildings.
As a second example, Her Majesty's Government gives special loans to industry for fuel efficiency plant and equipment and included in that is the cost of insulating buildings. The third example is that the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, which is a quasi-Government body responsible for the promotion of fuel efficiency in industry, has stated that up to 6 million tons of coal equivalent a year are lost as a result of our failure to insulate thermally our industrial buildings.
Perhaps the imagination boggles at those figures. I will put them into a form which every hon. Member will understand. If one takes the output of a coal miner as being 300 tons per annum, a loss of 6 million tons of coal represents the productive effort of 20,000 miners a year. That productive effort is being dissipated by our failure to pay attention to this simple process of insulating thermally our industrial buildings, which can be carried out almost entirely with indigenous materials, or the products of British industry made from materials produced entirely in this country.
In this preliminary venture, I think that I have said enough this afternoon to demonstrate to the House that this is a worthwhile proposition. The Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce is one which, if the House agrees to the Motion, will be sponsored by six Socialist Members and six Tory Members. The only exclusion is the Liberal Party, and I hope that at a later date Liberal Members will join me in this proposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Stokes, Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Ellis Smith, Major Tufton Beamish, Mr. Hobson, Sir Albert Braithwaite, Mr. Philips Price, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Russell and Mr. George Darling.

THERMAL INSULATION (INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS)

Bill to make provision for the thermal insulation of industrial buildings; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS DUTIES (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CASES WHERE CUSTOMS DUTIES MAY BE IMPOSED.)

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, after "interest", to insert:
or would assist the economy of any member of the British Commonwealth of Nations".

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Can you tell me why the Amendment in my name, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "that" to "affecting" in line 19 and to insert:
a subsidy has been given".
has not been called?

The Chairman: It is out of order, because it goes beyond the Money Resolution.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The effect of my Amendment would be to make explicit what may be implicit in the Bill, namely, a reference to Commonwealth exporters to this country and our intention to extend to them the same sort of protection that we would extend to our own traders and producers. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will say that this is already in the Bill by implication, but it is important, especially in respect of Commonwealth countries, to write this into the Bill and make it clear. It is certainly explicitly included in Article VI, paragraph (6, b) of G.A.T.T., which says that it is proper for us to protect exporters from third countries whose exports to us might be affected by dumping in our own market by some other country.
The reason why it is important to make this provision explicit and not merely to leave it implicit is that we should first make it quite clear that we want to encourage Commonwealth trade in every way, including the small ways made possible by the Bill and, secondly, that it is our clear and deliberate intention to extend to Commonwealth producers


the various provisions of the Bill, including, I hope, one or two others that we may be able to write in during the course of the Committee stage.
The Amendment having appeared on the Notice Paper, to reject it would be unfortunate because it would tend to discourage and worry Commonwealth producers. They have real fears; they are frightened that Argentine meat may be dumped in this market, which may not necessarily affect our own farmers because of our internal arrangements, but might gravely affect exports from Australia. The same thing could apply in the case of a possible dumping of wheat from France—and there is always the danger that the United States may unload its surplus stocks in such a way that Commonwealth exporters to this country would be gravely affected. These Commonwealth exporters want to know that prompt action would be taken, and the acceptance of the Amendment would make it clear to them and to their Governments that it was our intention to use the powers of the Bill promptly.
We ourselves are also in need of reciprocity. We need the same sort of protection in Commonwealth markets against dumping by some other country that they need in our market. As The Times said in its City column on the 25th of this month:
It is still difficult for British traders to compete on equal terms with American exporters in countries where the Export-Import Bank is active.
That means that there is a form of subsidisation of American products and exports which may go to Commonwealth markets and, because they are cheap owing to the cheap credit underlying them, they can hurt our exporters to those Commonwealth countries. We are, therefore, greatly in need of reciprocity, and it is easier to get reciprocity if we make it completely clear what we are going to do ourselves.
If the Government are to argue that putting these words in would make no difference, they are really putting forward an argument for accepting the Amendment. There can be no objection to putting them in, whereas there can be obvious advantages in making our intentions clear to Commonwealth Governments and producers. If it is in the

Government's mind so to argue I hope that they will turn the argument in favour of something which can do no possible harm and can make no difference in the strict legal sense, but can make a considerable difference in the confidence which Commonwealth exporters will have about the intended actions of the Government.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I wish to support the Amendment. It may be argued that to dump meat, butter or wheat on to the British market can be of great advantage to consumers, but it would be only a temporary advantage compared to the harm it might do to parts of the British Commonwealth. For example, I understand that America has huge stocks of surplus butter. These stocks can be released at any time on to the British market. Temporary advantages would arise, but immeasurable harm could be done to parts of our Commonwealth.
I do not see any reason why the President of the Board of Trade should not accept this very reasonable Amendment.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): We have complete sympathy with the intention behind the Amendment. As I said on Second Reading, one of the advantages of the Bill is that, following the provisions of G.A.T.T., we shall be able to use it where goods are dumped in this market and, as a consequence, they injure one of our established sources of supply outside this country.
Naturally, one thinks first of the Commonwealth sources of supply when considering the possibility that we should use the powers under the Bill in this way. But, having regard to the very good and close relations which we have with the Commonwealth, I do not think that it is necessary to spell out in the Bill words of the kind which it is here proposed to put in. As I have said, the Commonwealth countries would be uppermost in our minds, but I do not think that it would be very wise to put in words which gave the impression—as these words certainly would—that other countries would not have the benefit of the G.A.T.T. provision.
I can see that a case might arise where, if we got reciprocal treatment from a


country which was not a member of the Commonwealth, we might like to use the powers in the way in which the Bill lays down. Far from this Amendment making no difference, it is so worded as to cause extreme trouble. Hon. Members will see that Clause 1 says in what cases these duties may be imposed, and, as a qualification, it lays down that we should have to be satisfied having regard to all the circumstances that it would be "in the national interest." Then comes the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment:
or would assist the economy of any member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
That is an alternative. We could not write into the Bill that in cases where it was not in the national interest, but in the interest of a Commonwealth economy, we should use these powers. I sympathise with hon. Members opposite who drafted this Amendment. I am in exactly the same position as they are, as I have only had a short time to examine the Bill, and I realise how difficult it is to draft accurately; but to put in this Amendment as it is would create a very awkward situation.
Surely the phrase, "in the national interest" would cover the case where, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, dumping had taken place which injured a source of supply outside this country. We should only suggest to the House that an Order be confirmed for a duty because we thought it in the national interest, and I think it would be better not to try to spell this out. The Commonwealth countries know quite well, and we have told them, that in suitable cases we are ready to use the powers in this way.
Having regard to our general obligation under the G.A.T.T., I do not think it would be wise to single out one section of G.A.T.T. members, the Commonwealth countries, and write them into the Bill. The Amendment, as drafted, will not do, and, therefore, I advise the Committee not to accept it, while giving them the assurance that we have the powers and will use them in this way.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I am disappointed at the President's reception of this Amendment. I am not impressed, and I hope that the Committee is not either, by the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. He assumes that when one says that something should be done in the national interest, and then puts it

in the words of the Amendment, a distinction is made which would imply that we were saying, "Now we will do something for the Commonwealth countries if it is against our national interest". The right hon. Gentleman has put it as if it were an alternative which involves a certain amount of mutually exclusive consideration. In fact, it can be looked at in quite another way.
It can be considered from a standpoint from which we should be influenced solely by whether or not it was in the national interest. Then there is a standpoint from which it would not prejudice our national interest in any way; in fact, it would be irrelevant to our national interest. That would happen in respect of many trades which would assist the economy of one of the Commonwealth countries, but would not help or injure our national interest. But, because of our close link with the Commonwealth, we should be inclined to say that because this was doing harm there we wished to do something to help. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it could have that effect. If that is made absolutely clear, the Commonwealth countries could, by reciprocal arrangements, make things much easier for us. We lose that benefit unless we state this specifically and indicate our intention.
I am disturbed, because it appears to me that part of the President's argument was that we did not wish to say this and to put the Commonwealth nations in a special position. We wanted to consider our national interest solely, and there might well be a conflict which would suggest, not that we wish to help the Commonwealth, but that we saw reasons why we should not. I should have been more impressed by the President's argument that we are being specific in relating this matter to the Commonwealth and not other contracting parties to G.A.T.T. if the right hon. Gentleman had said, "Here is a jolly good idea. Article VI of G.A.T.T. specifically states that this sort of thing should be done and we will go the whole hog and do it in accordance with that Article."
I should have been more impressed had the right hon. Gentleman also said to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, "My quarrel with you is that you have not drafted your Amendment in sufficiently wide terms. You have related it to the Commonwealth, and you


have not gone far enough. But the idea is good; it is strictly in accordance with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and, therefore, between now and Report stage I will consider the matter and produce something which will give you all this, and something more as well."
Instead of taking that line the President has flatly refused to accept this Amendment. When the observations made in this debate are read in Commonwealth countries, I hope that they will concentrate on what the right hon. Gentleman said about being in general agreement with the idea although he did not like the method of doing it. If Commonwealth leaders address themselves to the arguments which the President used in refusing this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman may find that those arguments will do much more harm than he considers that our Amendment can do.

4.0 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I would support my right hon. Friend in resisting this Amendment, but for rather different reasons from the ones he gave. I should have thought that the one thing which we ought to try to avoid in this Committee is to attempt virtually to legislate for an autonomous Dominion. If we do incorporate these words in this Clause, it is virtually certain that we are saying in so many words that we are better judges of what is in the interests of individual Commonwealth countries than what their own Governments can decide for themselves. For that reason alone, I think there is a very strong case for resisting this Amendment, not because we do not wish to do anything which would help the Commonwealth in the long term.
I hold the view that the moment we start talking about the national interests of this country, those words become synonymous with the interests of the Commonwealth. I do not believe that this country can ever afford to do something which is damaging to the Commonwealth in the long run, or that the Commonwealth well-being is improved by doing something which is damaging to the United Kingdom. For that reason, also, I think that there is a strong case for resisting the Amendment.
Further, I believe that the use of the word "or" at the beginning of the Amendment is most unfortunate, because it implies that there is some difference between this country's interests and the interests and well-being of the Commonwealth as a whole. If the Amendment is to be incorporated in the Bill at all, it ought to begin with the word "and" rather than "or", but, personally, I feel very strongly that it would be a mistake to incorporate it in the Bill at all.
We have to remember that there are certain commodities which are produced in Commonwealth countries, particularly Canada, which can be very inconvenient for home producers, particularly in horticulture. We have had examples in the past, when the Canadians at a particularly unfortunate time sent in apples at very reduced prices at a time when the home grower was hoping to be able to dispose of his crop. Therefore, without contradicting what I have said, I think that sometimes, when not enough thought is given to these things by the United Kingdom Government, as when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, certain things can happen which allow the Commonwealth countries to do things which, with a little more thought, the United Kingdom Government ought to have been able to show them they would be very wise not to do.
Therefore, so long as the United Kingdom Government are fully aware of the great necessity of protecting people in this country who are producing commodities which really cannot stand up against unfair competition, there is nothing at all contradictory, in my view, in a policy which is in the interests of this country and the general well-being of the Commonwealth as a whole. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be rejected.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I must say a word or two in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). He said that we did not give enough thought when we were in office to what we were doing, but, clearly, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given enough thought to the arguments he has used in his own speech. He is guilty of a flat contradiction. He started by talking about the interest of the Commonwealth never being in conflict with the interest of this country, and then gave a specific example when they could be


in conflict. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must make up his mind on which point he will rest.
When the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we were proposing that we should legislate for other Commonwealth countries, he was talking nonsense. What we must do is legislate ourselves, here, and use the powers here. Indeed, the President said we would do the very things which this Amendment is intended to spell out. The right hon. Gentleman was not against giving that power, but thought that it was unnecessary. If this were legislating on behalf of the Commonwealth, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman said we shoud not do, it is the very thing which the Government are prepared to do. We think it is not legislating on behalf of another Commonwealth country, but legislating in this House and in this country within the powers which Parliament has. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech had any relevance at all to the matter under discussion.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
Provided That, where goods are exported to the United Kingdom by any of the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Board of Trade shall not exercise its power under this Act unless it appears to the Board that the dumping or subsidising of such goods would cause or threaten material injury to an established industry or retard materially 'he establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom.
The President of the Board of Trade will not be able to use one argument here which he used against the last Amendment, namely, that it singles out some members of G.A.T.T., because this one specifically includes all of them. The right hon. Gentleman will have to think up some other argument in that respect, because the argument he used on the previous Amendment, or that part of it, is now in favour of our Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to write clearly into the Bill an important part of the definition of dumping which occurs in Article VI of G.A.T.T., in paragraph (6, a). We want this in the Bill because we are very keen that the Bill shall do what it sets out to do, that it shall deal only with dumping and improper subsidy of exports and shall not in any way be the pretence for smuggling

in protection in general. I know that I shall carry our Liberal hon. Friends with us on that point.
No doubt the argument will again be used that it is not, in the strictest sense, necessary. On the other hand, it seems to us a very great pity when there is a very clear definition of dumping in an international instrument to which we are a party not to follow that definition up, and all the more because the main definition of dumping in the Bill is, of course, drawn from Article VI of G.A.T.T. If we draw part of it from that Article and leave out another part of the definition, which is very important, it really suggests that we are deliberately leaving out that part of the definition.
Our first reason for the Amendment, therefore, is that we really want to define genuine dumping as closely and as narrowly as we can. I think that that is also the intention of the Government, and that it is an objective on which we are not at variance, but I believe that our wording would achieve that objective better than does the Clause unamended.
The Minister of State said, on Second Reading, when I made this point in general, that if we put these words in from Article VI of G.A.T.T. it would hamstring us in our trade relations with countries which are not members of G.A.T.T. I think he said that they were the Iron Curtain countries. We saw the force of that, and the hon. and learned Gentleman can see that we have drafted our Amendment to meet that very point. This would not in any way hamstring us in our trade relations with the Iron Curtain countries, or any other countries not included in G.A.T.T. which do not have obligations towards us which some others have under Article VI.
We feel that it would be worth while spelling this out to make clear that we do not intend to smuggle in protection, and that, in regard to our relations with other members of G.A.T.T., we intend to apply a definition of dumping which is strictly and literally in accord with the definition agreed by all members of G.A.T.T. under Article VI.

Mr. Peter Remnant: I confess that I had at one time considered tabling an Amendment which would have the same effect as that which the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has moved. I thought at that


time that it was inherent in the purposes of the Bill that attention should be paid to material interests. On looking at the Amendment of the rignt hon. Gentleman, I would have thought that not only is his wording considerably better than that of the Amendment which I had thought of tabling, but that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, and that it is better to write this into the Bill than leave it as an understanding. The prime purpose of the Bill is to avoid doing material injury to an established industry or retarding materially the establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom.
The other point which obviously arises is the differentiation between member countries of G.A.T.T. and other countries. Here again, if liberty is to be given for action by the Board of Trade, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick is quite right. If we believe in G.A.T.T.—there may be some of us who do not believe in it 100 per cent.—and if we are aiming at the objective expressed in the Amendment, I suggest that we are right to limit it to G.A.T.T. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in asking my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether he can accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. Williams: I hope that the Minister will receive the Amendment favourably. We are at one in that we wish to avoid the effect of dumping on our industries. We are at one in that we wish to avoid the effect of these practices where they damage our national interest. In Lancashire, in particular, we are most sensitive about this, because goods which have been manufactured there have had to be left in the shops, and in stock, and the workers engaged in their manufacture have been on short time or unemployed. At the same time, the men and women so affected have had the humiliating and infuriating experience of seeing dumped and subsidised goods being sold in the shops in the very areas where they themselves were manufacturing their goods. There will be no lack of sympathy for the measures which should be taken to provide the terms of fair trade.
In deciding and defining what is to be done in that connection, it would be right, if G.A.T.T. did not exist at all, for the Bill to be just as it is, without the

Amendment. There is, however, one point which must surely be decisive in any argument as to whether the proviso should be included, and that is that the Bill stems from Article VI of G.A.T.T. In Article VI this definition appears in specific terms.
What is our position if we say, in an Agreement solemnly arrived at, "This is what we mean", but, when we are putting that Agreement into legislative effect in a Bill, we say, "We will apply a much wider definition and go beyond what we have agreed."? That is not a question of the greater including the lesser. Here, we are doing something fundamentally different from Article VI if we do not define in terms similar to those in the Agreement how far we wish this to apply.
Does the Minister really intend the Committee to give authority for the application of the measures proposed in the Bill in cases against G.A.T.T. countries where the definition in the Agreement would not be applicable? Has he some idea of dumping or subsidising—thinking now only of that obtaining between the contracting parties to G.A.T.T.—and does he want to take some measures beyond the Agreement, even though he is presumably in honour tied by the terms of the Agreement? It is most advisable that, when we are giving the wide powers which I think we are properly giving in this Measure, we should ensure that they are defined in the terms to which we have, as contracting parties to G.A.T.T., already agreed.

4.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: If I may be allowed to try to put the brake on this unshovelling of sovereignty exercise in which we are indulging, I should be grateful. The argument we are hearing is that because a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed some years ago we must, therefore, make quite certain that the Bill in no way infringes the undertakings of that Agreement. I do not mind openly confessing that if the Bill could be used to reassert our right to discriminate in trade, and so undermine the whole principle of G.A.T.T., nobody would be more pleased than I.
The difficulty we are in is that half our trade concerns the Commonwealth, one quarter of our trade concerns European countries and the remaining one


quarter is with countries which are neither Commonwealth nor European. Unfortunately, however, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade embraces a great many countries in all three of those groups. We are, as it were, discussing the Bill with a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, in the shape of the proposals for the free trade area in Europe. My own belief is that when that agreement is signed, whether we become members or not, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will, from that moment onwards, be entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the future.
It would seem to me a pity, in discussing the Bill, if we felt so bound to the existing terms of the General Agreement that we produced a Measure which will not be the most effective we could devise to deal with the problem with which we are confronted—namely, dumping. If it is really a question of international relationship, depending upon the moment when this is implemented, I would far sooner that we drafted a Bill which really did restore to the United Kingdom the right to discriminate in that quarter of our trade which is neither European nor Commonwealth, and delayed the appointed day when this Bill will become an Act, rather than that we should try to devise a Bill now which will be undermined by the very fact that we have tried to keep it within the terms of G.A.T.T.
The Amendment has another danger in it. I refer to the question of threatening material injury to an established industry. Of all parts of industry threatened by dumping, none is more threatened than horticulture, which is often regarded as part of agriculture. It may well be argued by those who want to dump horticultural produce into this country that, when we take the global amount of the dumped commodity and compare it with the total production of British agriculture, the imports could not possibly be regarded as any material menace to the agricultural industry as a whole.
The horticultural industry is not sure whether it can be regarded as a separate industry in the context of G.A.T.T., but the impact of dumped commodities upon the industry can be catastrophic. Even so, it may very well be that we should

not be able to establish that material injury had been done to it because agriculture, of which horticulture may be regarded as part, would not have been seriously damaged.

Mr. Remnant: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is not conveying the impression that he intends to give, because he might be interpreted as not regarding horticulture as an established industry.

Major Legge-Bourke: The whole implication of my remarks is that horticulture is very much a separate industry. Growers in this country regard themselves as separate from agriculture, although they rely on the leadership given by the organisation which represents agriculture as a whole. There is a very strong subcommittee of the National Farmers' Union to deal with horticulture, but when high level talks take place on the subject it is the N.F.U., as a body, which conducts the negotiation and not its horticultural sub-committee.
I do not think that anybody in horticulture wants a complete banning of imports, but to avoid the effect of unfair competition it is important to take action in time. There is a very real risk arising out of the slight difference of emphasis shown between the opening speech of my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading and the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, when he was replying to the debate. There is uncertainty whether or not the procedure will be quick enough. The full rigmarole outlined with great lucidity by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State would often be far too slow to produce any real benefit to horticulture in this country.

Mr. R. Williams: I am following the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) as well as I can. If his embarrassment is to be found in the fact that horticulture should be regarded as a separate industry and is not so regarded—which I understand to be his point—and if he is speaking against the Amendment and his argument were to succeed, he would be thrown back on the words "national interest." Horticulture being regarded as a small part of agriculture would embarrass him just as much, if not more


in that case, because "national interest" is a much wider expression than the words we are discussing.

Major Legge-Bourke: For the purpose of his own argument the hon. Member very conveniently forgot to give any consideration to the point I made earlier, about having the right to discriminate in this country. My greatest hope of the Bill is that it will not be "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" by the present terms of G.A.T.T. If the European market is established, G.A.T.T. will be completely out of date and will have to be redesigned. We should draft the Bill to see that what we get is in the best interests of our country and of those industries or parts of industries which are most open to threats of dumping and unfair discrimination.
I would like to call attention to a particular form of dumping which might be relevant also on a later Amendment. I should like to raise it now to avoid having to speak on the subject again later. There is a form of disguised dumping which is often suspected to be taking place and which it is virtually impossible to prove. It particularly affects commodities which are still under quota, and in horticulture that means apples and pears. The quota permits are based on the monetary value. It is possible for Italian farmers to send double the amount of pears that the quota would include at current prices, and yet to keep within the quota.

Mr. R. Williams: On a point of order. I am very interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, Sir Charles, but surely it is related to subsection (3), in respect of which there are Amendments on the Notice Paper. If a debate is raised on this point some of my hon. Friends who are interested in the matter would like to take part in it. Would that be in order on this Amendment?

Major Legge-Bourke: We are discussing the threat of material injury to an established industry in this Amendment. I should have thought my argument was not out of order on that point. I do not know whether you wish to give a Ruling, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: To which Amendment was the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) calling attention?

Mr. Williams: We have an Amendment in page 2, line 20, after "goods" to insert:
or certain loans or other credit facilities in respect of raw materials".
It is to be read in relation to subsection (3, b), which contains these words:
where such treatment has the effect of assisting a reduction of the prices of goods offered for export.
That is exactly what the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely is talking about.

The Chairman: I would not like to rule on that matter at the moment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we should be discussing the subject later. Perhaps we might discuss these Amendments together.

Mr. Williams: My fear is that my hon. Friends who are concerned with subsequent Amendments might be tempted to make their contributions now.

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will try to keep his remarks as close as he can to the Amendment before the Committee.

Major Legge-Bourke: Yes, Sir Charles. I had very nearly come to the conclusion of those remarks.
It is possible for the pears sent in a particular consignment to be in accordance with the quota value and yet be double the quantity. They come in to the great advantage of the importer and to the great disadvantage of the home producer. The deficiency is made up later by putting up the prices of imports which are not subject to quota. The practice is notorious, although I do not think that it is widespread.
If we are to prevent material injury, our action must be very prompt indeed if it is to have the slightest effect in protecting the home producer. I hope that we shall have a re-emphasis of the points made by my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend to the effect that the Board of Trade will have power to take action on its own very quickly and that we shall not always have to go through the entire procedure outlined by the Minister of State.
I come back to the point I was making at the beginning of my speech, that it would be a pity if we did not take advantage of the opportunity that the Bill gives to produce something in the long-term


interest of this country, visualising the possibility of circumstances changing very considerably as the result of the Messina Powers taking action and of the O.E.E.C. Powers coming in.
I am not asking for a definite decision today because I know that he would not be able to give it, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will not rule out the possibility that if European free trade is something we shall simply have to go into he will give far more consideration to that quarter of our trade which is neither European nor Commonwealth and see whether it will be necessary for us, contrary to the present terms of the G.A.T.T., to reassert our right to discriminate in that portion of our trade.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Edwards: Perhaps we may now get back to the Amendment, as we are not discussing the European common market, or the terms of G.A.T.T. We are discussing putting into the Bill some words in Article VI of G.A.T.T., which is about the best definition of dumping which has been written into any documeent which has come from any series of conferences in the world.
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the President of the Board of Trade repeatedly declared that the Bill itself is greatly influenced by Article VI of G.A.T.T. If that is so, I do not see why there should be resistance to this simple and very clearly defined Amendment, which would merely write into the Bill those words in the Agreement which refer to dumping which is likely to undermine
…or threaten material injury to an established industry…
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), in an excellent speech in the Second Reading debate, gave the concrete example of the Lancashire cotton industry where, in only five years, 7,000 skilled and trained workers had been driven out of their industry. We do not want that to happen to engineering, or plastics, or a whole range of other industries. By accepting this wording we would merely define the prevention of injury which could arise out of dumping.
We could have dumping of products which might be cheap but which would ruin and completely undermine a strategic industry, of this country. Because

there would be no possibility of competing, skilled workers might be dispersed, and in times of crisis it would be impossible for us to reassemble and retrain those workers. We might have temporary advantages 'through low prices of commodities, but those advantages would have no meaning at all if serious damage were done to a growing or established industry.
For these modest reasons, and those submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept this Amendment. He has already indicated the influence which Article VI of G.A.T.T. has had on the Bill. For the life of me, I cannot see why there should be resistance from the Government benches to the Amendment.

Sir D. Eccles: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) depressed me quite considerably. I knew that we were about to go in for a very long and difficult negotiation on the European free trade area, but I had not reckoned that it would be followed by renegotiating G.A.T.T. That would be a tremendous task indeed.
Since my hon. and gallant Friend raised this as an important question, I think I ought to tell him that there is no intention at all of balancing the advantages which we hope to gain from going in with the European free trade area by greater discrimination against the United States and other countries which are neither European nor members of the Commonwealth. Indeed, we look upon the possibility of joining in the free trade area in Europe as another move in a line we have been pursuing for some time, namely, the liberalisation of trade over the widest possible field.
We have put our name to G.A.T.T. Although I quite agree with some of my hon. Friends that to be 100 per cent. supporters of G.A.T.T. is very difficult, none the less the balance of advantage for a trading country like ours, seems fairly clear. As I said in my Second Reading speech—of which I should like to remind the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams)—we have no intention of going back on the obligations that we have assumed under Article VI.
The question, therefore, is whether we should write into the Bill the particular words concerning
material injury to an established industry.
We did not do so because it makes a distinction between our treatment of members of G.A.T.T. and countries which are not members of it. I thought that, possibly, it would be sufficient to give the Committee an assurance that we were going to abide by Article VI without writing it into the Bill. However, I am quite ready to do so and to accept the principle of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking-ham (Mr. Remnant).
The interesting thing about the Amendment is why it cannot be accepted as it stands. It cannot be accepted because it is contrary to the interests of the Commonwealth, which the right hon. Member defended so lustily on the previous occasion. The Amendment says:
…would cause or threaten material injury to an established industry or retard materially the establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom.
Since we have the interests of the Commonwealth at heart we should not restrict this to the United Kingdom. As we said on the previous Amendment, where a clear case is made we mean to use those powers if the source of supply which is materially injured is outside this country and, more particularly, in the Commonwealth.
Therefore, if the right hon. Member will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake at the next stage of the Bill to propose words which will embody what the right hon. Member wishes to do and widen the scope so that the industry concerned may be one which is outside this country as well as one which is inside this country.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It was not our intention to damage the Commonwealth. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to conflate the Amendment we were just discussing and the Amendment he has promised. We shall be very interested to see the words he chooses to achieve that object. In the light of the undertaking that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Major Legge-Bourke: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say to my right hon. Friend that, although I do not propose to pursue the matter now, the statement he has made about our intentions if we were to go into the European common market I regard as the most disturbing statement which has yet been made on this subject. I hope that he will understand that I feel that what he has said has made it all the more important that we should not go into the European free trade area.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end to insert:
Provided that this section shall not apply to imported goods unless the dumping is the result of the subsidy affecting the goods, or of a restriction or control imposed by the Government or other authority of

(a) the country in which the goods originated, or
(b) where the country from which the goods were exported to the United Kingdom is different from the country in which they originated, either the country in which the goods originated or the country from which they were exported.
I am somewhat relieved to hear that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is greatly disturbed about something which the Government are doing, because that means that I shall probably be a great deal happier about what they are doing.
Since the President of the Board of Trade has, in principle, accepted the last Amendment, and in view of some of his remarks on Second Reading, the present position is that we have some general definition of national interest. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely would perhaps like to be assured on one point which disturbs me, and it is whether the horticultural industry is considered to be an industry of its own or part of the agricultural industry. I referred on Second Reading to a recent ruling made on this in the United States, from which he will see that there is hope for him that if the Bill is passed the President of the Board of Trade might decide that "industry" also means "a section of an industry." That is the case on which there has been a ruling in the United States.
My complaint about this kind of legislation is that Parliament passes something


which is essentially very vague and which is developed as time goes on. It may well be that as time passes it will be considered in the national interest to impose some dumping duty if only a small injury has been done to an industry, and not only in the case of a whole industry but to a section of an industry or a section of an industry in an area. That is now the position in the United States. It all arises from the basis of Article VI of G.A.T.T. If we are on the basis of Article VI, where shall we be in a few years' time in the various interpretations which will follow?
On Second Reading, I made it clear that the Liberal Party was in support of the Government having weapons as a deterrent to stop interference caused by Governments with the smooth flow of trade. I had in mind circumstances in which Governments gave subsidies, or even if they interfered with trade in a way which is excluded by this Bill in the last paragraph of subsection (2). I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has tabled an Amendment, in page 2, to leave out lines 28 to 31. If the general principles which I should like the Bill to follow were to be adopted, I should gladly support that Amendment; but not, I am afraid, if things go the way I expect.
We should divide in our minds those acts of dumping which take place as the result of the assistance of an industry in another country by its Government from that dumping which is done by a private firm which has some surplus of which it wishes to dispose. I was alarmed by what the President said, as reported at column 58 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd January. I wonder whether, on second thoughts, he stands by it. He was answering an intervention from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), and he gave the following answer off the cuff—and if he stands by that answer it is an alarming description of the way in which he intends to use these powers:
I suppose that if, say, at the end of the season, a foreign firm started to dump in this market fashion goods which it had failed to sell in its own market, it would be reasonable to consider putting on an anti-dumping duty." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 58.]
Is it reasonable? What will happen to those goods? We shall do it. In fact,

we are doing it all over the place. Certainly, it will happen when there is a common market in Europe. There will be surpluses at the end of seasons and at other times. There will be nothing vicious or underhand about it. People will have made a little more than the market wants at the price which would show a profit, and the only way they can get rid of the goods is to cut the price. There will be a limited quantity of such goods. How can we refuse to have any of that dumping? if we refuse, we shall get into trouble.
In any event it would be unwise, for our market can absorb such goods, but We shall get into trouble from the point of view of retaliation, because we shall be doing the same thing in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere, and if we prevent their surpluses from coming here, when they have some, they will try to prevent our surpluses from entering their countries.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): Will the hon. Member explain why the exporting, dumping country cannot cut the price in its own country, too?

Mr. Holt: Of course it will.

Hon. Members: Then it is not dumping.

Mr. Holt: if that is the position, I am most interested to know it, but it is not my reading of the Bill. A fair market price is related to the cost price, too, as I understand. I take it from the Bill that it is dumping if anything is sold below the cost price, and in this case that would mean the cost price plus the cost of transit to the country where the goods are being sold.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It says specifically in Clause 7 that the difference must be the difference between the price at which it is exported and the price at which it is selling in the ordinary course of trade in the country of export. It is not the cost price; it is a comparison between the price in the market there and the price in the market here.

Mr. Holt: I know that, but hon. Members will see that it involves a question of the interpretation of Clause 6 (3). If I am wrong I shall be pleased to hear about it and shall be relieved of many worries, but I take it that when the


market price cannot be ascertained because of some disturbance of conditions the President of the Board of Trade is entitled to find out the cost price.

Sir D. Eccles: If the goods are on sale in the country of origin, that is the first criterion. It is only when that does not exist that we go on to an estimation of what they cost. If there is a home market price and that price has been cut, then we cannot claim that the goods are dumped.

Mr. Holt: I am very glad to hear that and I shall look further into it, but it seemed to me that if the market had been disturbed in some way and the price had been reduced, that might be a sufficient reason for the Minister to examine the question purely from the point of view of cost.
The last point that I want to make in support of my own Amendment is that the chief problem in creating stability of trade comes from endeavouring to get countries to stop interfering, and the residual problem left, once that is done, is very small indeed.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: All that the hon. Gentleman's argument presupposes is that no country in Europe or elsewhere has a nationalised industry. If an industry is nationalised and forms a substantial part of the national economy it is inseparable from the operation of the Government policy that the Government wishes shall be carried out by that industry, as in the case of France with the Renault factory or Italy with the Fiat factory. How can he make a statement of that kind, which is so general in character as to be invalid?

Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Member mean by that that every industry in France is to some extent interfered with by the Government? That is presumably his point.

Mr. Nabarro: It is not presumably my point at all. The point is that all these countries have in a degree nationalised industries and the general policy of those industries is determined at least in some measure by Governmental action. It is, therefore, stupid to say that a Government must not in any circumstances interfere in commercial policy when it is their duty and responsibility to guide the policy of nationalised industries.

Mr. Holt: We are now on a different point. I am not now arguing whether Governments should interfere in industrial or commercial policy on any occasion. I am merely saying that one of the troubles in trade is the constant interference of Governments which results in some kind of subsidy to private firms. In the prevention of that kind of thing I am wholeheartedly in support of the Bill.
The whole point of my Amendment is to say that where a private firm, unsupported by any Government subsidy or any Government control which has the effect of subsidising its goods, happens for a month or two to sell its goods at a price which amounts to dumping in another country, it should not be a dumping activity which should attract the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. The basic reason that I say this is that such a firm could not go on doing that for long. If it sells goods below cost to another country for long, it eventually goes out of business. Meantime, we do not want a lot of work done here and a lot of people disturbing the whole channels of the Customs looking for this kind of thing.
We shall spoil the whole effort if we try to catch every little attempt at dumping by every firm in countries which send goods here. We should concentrate on the major problem, of which there was mention in a previous debate, concerning dumping activities, such as the French subsidy on potatoes and subsidies on wheat, American butter and the like, which might completely upset the agricultural market. If we concentrate on dealing with those problems, then the others are of minor significance and we would do far better to leave them out of the Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. If it were adopted it would vitally effect the great national industry of agriculture. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has pointed out the risks to horticulture, but I am interested in the possibility of the dumping of new potatoes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) would allow the free import of all kinds of new potatoes into this country at all times.

Mr. Holt: Not without tariffs.

Mr. Hughes: Let me give an illustration. When I have given it perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to convince me that I am wrong and that I should vote for his Amendment.
I understand that if the Amendment were carried there would be free importation to this country of new potatoes, say, from Cyprus. Last year we had an importation of new potatoes from Cyprus into South Ayrshire, which was simply catastrophic—far more catastrophic than the importation of potatoes from France.
Ayrshire farmers like the new potato market to come in about March or April. While we had no objection to the importation or dumping of new potatoes into this country when we could not supply them, as a result of Government action in Cyprus the Cyprus potato crop was delayed for a whole month because of the potato ships being held up in Famagusta. Just as Ayrshire new potatoes were coming on to the market, four shiploads of new potatoes from Cyprus came in a month late and arrived in Glasgow and the Port of Leith. The result was that Ayrshire farmers paid the collective fine imposed on the people of Cyprus, because through this dumping, Ayrshire farmers lost approximately £500,000.
To the farmers in that particular part of Scotland this is an essential national industry, and the Ayrshire branch of the National Farmers' Union sent me an urgent message telling me to bring this to the attention of the Government. Supposing the hon. Member for Bolton, West represented South Ayrshire, would he have agreed that this huge lot of potatoes should be allowed to come into the country and completely ruin the farmers in his constituency?

Mr. Holt: Whether my Amendment were accepted or not, it would not alter the situation.

Mr. Hughes: So far as I read the Amendment, it would mean that new potatoes from Cyprus would be allowed to come in ad lib., with the result that it would completely ruin those farmers and completely undermine the standard of life of the people in the agricultural industry. I therefore share the apprehension of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
I am not so enthusiastic about this European common market at present. Is Cyprus likely to come into the European common market? If it is, I cannot see the slightest enthusiasm on the part of the farmers I represent about this new development in Conservative policy. They will share the grave apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, whom I do not often support, but who has, I think, justified certain statements which he made on this occasion. I suggest that this old, orthodox free trade argument which has been produced does not apply to my particular constituency. Indeed, we shall watch very carefully at what time Cyprus new potatoes are likely to come in this year.
I should like an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he will be a little more considerate to agriculture in the west of Scotland than was his predecessor. I regard some parts of the old Liberal philosophy and some parts of the free trade argument as quite acceptable, but I suggest that we are entitled to some protection at certain times. We do not want to increase the cost of potatoes in the first three months of the year, because the cost of living is going up enough already.

Mr. Holt: Do I understand that the hon. Member does not want protection when there is no point in it, but wants it only when it will be effective?

Mr. Hughes: It is certainly no remedy at all for the problem to which I have drawn the attention of the Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) used the phrase "ordinary course of trade." Surely the dumping of Cyprus potatoes a month late is not the ordinary course of trade. I shall have to oppose this Amendment, in the interests of the particular section of my constituents to whom I have referred.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Boyd: I do not want to join this remarkable alliance of the outside wings of the political field which has just been demonstrated. It seems to me as though we have extreme reactionaries on both wings of political thought, and I am not in agreement with them. With the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), I am glad of the assurance we have had


that the plan of a free trade area in Europe is not intended to be the means of discriminating to a greater extent against countries outside that area. In fact, I hope that this conception will lead to an attempt to draw into it other countries, especially America. If that suggestion could be put to the Americans it would be a useful exercise for them to discuss, and might make it more difficult for them to accuse us of lagging behind in inter-national, especially European, co-operation.

Major Legge-Bourke: When the hon. Member expresses the hope that America may come in, I hope that he does not overlook the fact that all this tendency towards getting Europe together, either federally or otherwise, was first promoted by the Americans themselves.

Mr. Boyd: Their coming in would be a useful step towards the solution of our dollar problems. Most of all, we need to open up dollar markets. I believe that Britain is ready to face any competition and make inroads into the American market if American protection can be lifted, and we should frankly say that we should like America to come into this free trade area. At least, when the plan has got under way and the Americans can see that it is a reality, it is probable that they will not want to be left out of the large European market that will be created.
I hope that the Government will push ahead with the plan for the European free trade area without waiting for the narrower Customs union of the Six to come into operation first. It might be that the six nations will get so bogged down about the details of the tariffs on which they could agree that they might prefer the free trade area as a whole, in which case we might be able to go right into it, instead of tagging on behind.
I have great sympathy for what the hon. Member for Bolton, West says. To a great extent I am a free trader. I have said that our industries should be—and I believe they are—willing to face fair competition—that applies especially to the ablest and most successful of our industries and businessmen—but they are entitled to look to the Government to protect them against extreme degrees of unfair competition from abroad. That is

recognised even in the Liberal Amendment. It is, however, mistaken to believe that such dumping by private industry could not at any time be a serious danger.
If we could be sure that dumping would continue; if we could, as it were, arrange a bulk, long-term contract for continuous dumping of a certain type of goods so that it was no longer necessary for us to have our own industry capable of supplying those goods, then, of course, dumping would be wholly advantageous to us. We should get products below cost, and benefit by a subsidy provided by another country. That is just what a private industry cannot do. Dumping as a policy of private firms is purely short-term, so I think that this country must be equipped to deal with that kind of eventuality.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It must be a matter of keen disappointment to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) that his advocacy was unable to convince the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I think that I would lay myself open to a charge of using the language of hyperbole if I suggested that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire invariably reflected majority opinion in this House; but I think that on this occasion it is probable that, in his opposition to the Amendment, he does so reflect majority opinion.
I have listened very carefully, as, I am sure, has the whole Committee, to what the hon. Member for Bolton, West had to say. Last night I re-read the speech which he made on Second Reading. I had the pleasure of hearing it at the time. when he also developed his theme of a sort of dichotomy between the two sorts of dumping which, he suggests, exist—a dumping with a Governmental promotion, and a dumping arising purely through the agency of private traders. I am bound to say that, in his differentiation between these two sorts of dumping, he has made a definition which is not in accordance with the facts as known.
The hon. Member classifies the second sort of dumping, that which he would wish to exclude from the benefits of this Bill, as dumping by private firms with small surpluses. It is, of course, the fact that private individuals do use dumping as an act of deliberate policy. And they


need not be individuals; trading corporations or combines of one sort or another do likewise. Moreover, though the periods of dumping may be only seasonal and may be only temporary, it does not at all follow that the effects of well-promoted, well-organised dumping may not be permanent upon the relevant industry in this country, and manifest itself in terms of unemployment, bankruptcies, etc. Therefore, it is not right to take the view that, where we are dealing with dumping originating from acts of policy by traders or trading organisations in other countries, we are dealing with only a small matter. During the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend gave one example. That, of course, was not an exclusive example but was only illustrative.
The hon. Gentleman expressed apprehension that every little bit of dumped goods will attract the machinery of this Bill. There he is clearly under a misapprehension, as I am sure he will appreciate if he will be good enough to refresh his mind as to the actual text and provisions of the Bill. For an Order in relation to dumping to be made by the Board of Trade, and approved by this House, the following conditions have to be satisfied. First, there has to be dumping in accordance with the criteria specified in the Bill; that is to say, the export price must be less than the domestic fair market price. Secondly, it has to be in the national interest, having regard to all the circumstances. Thirdly, as has been made explicit by the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) earlier this afternoon, which my right hon. Friend has accepted in principle, there will have to be a material injury to the industry in the case of all G.A.T.T. countries.
Having regard to those three conditions which have to be satisfied, it is apparent that the hon. Gentleman's fears that every petty matter of the sort which he appears to have in mind would automatically bring into operation the machinery and procedures of the Bill, are groundless. In point of fact, I am bound to say to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment runs right counter to the whole principle and pattern of the Bill.

Mr. Holt: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be able to reassure

me about this? Would the President of the Board of Trade think, when he comes to look at it now, that the remark which he made, reported in col. 58 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd January, given rather "off the cuff", was not really an accurate description of what he would do, and that those conditions do not really comply with the conditions laid down in the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend was asked for an example of the way in which the Bill might work. He took as his example a foreign firm starting
to dump in this market fashion goods which it had failed to sell in its own market"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 376, c. 58.]
In giving that example, my right hon. Friend had in mind in his use of the word "dumping" that the conditions specified were satisfied, namely that the export price as defined in Clause 6 was less than the fair market price ascertained under the provisions of Clause 7. Therefore it was, as one would expect, a perfectly valid example, though not intended to be an exclusive catalogue; it was merely what he was asked to give, an example of how the Bill might operate in practice.

Major Legge-Bourke: I hope that in what he is saying my right hon. and learned Friend is not in any way detracting from what the President himself said on Second Reading on 22nd January:
On the other hand, unless we have in reserve the power to act promptly we might as well not introduce a Bill at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 376, c. 63.]
I hope that the emphasis will be on promptness.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) made that point very eloquently on Second Reading. I think that I did assure him and the House then, in answer to his observations, that it would be necessary for the proper implementation of the Bill that there should be a speedy and efficacious way of dealing with these cases, more particularly cases of seasonal dumping.
We have that very much in mind, and so far from in any way differing or derogating from what my right hon. Friend said then, I am very happy to have this opportunity of reinforcing it as best I may.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has said some words of consolation to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). Could he give us some assurance about new potatoes?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I listened with careful attention, as always, to the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. It was not clear to me how his case actually fitted into the pattern of this Bill. I was not quite sure what result he had got when he applied his mind to testing it against the criteria specified in the Bill. But I am sure that his constituents will be very gratified that their legitimate interests have been so powerfully advocated in the House of Commons today.
May I now return to the basic objection to the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). As I was saying, it runs counter to the principle and pattern of the Bill. We are here seeking to give protection by a common remedy against two specific abuses, one, dumping, and the other, subsidies.
5.15 p.m.
What the Amendment is in fact doing is to make the identification of a subsidy or bounty a prerequisite for applying the remedy in case of dumping. In other words, under the Amendment dumping would qualify for the remedy of an import duty only if it were, in the words of the Amendment,
the result of the subsidy affecting the goods".
The consequence of that is that the test of dumping could be satisfied only in those cases where there was no point or advantage from it because the remedy would be obtainable under the other half of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would bisect the Bill and jettison what we consider to be an indispensable half of it. I think he will not take it amiss if I say that it is a wrecking Amendment. It is based on the Liberal misconception that traders are everywhere fair-minded people and that evil actions are done only under the stamp of Government authority. That is not, I am afraid, the experience that we have of the world. The effect of his Amendment would be to take away a very large part of the protection which the Bill is designed to give, and quite clearly it is unacceptable for that reason.
I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Cronin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, after "goods," to insert:
or certain loans or other credit facilities in respect of raw materials.

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I say that I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took with this Amendment the following three Amendments—in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert:

(a) the giving of any special subsidy on the growing, processing or sale of any raw material or raw materials embodied in a particular product, whether such raw material or raw materials originated in the country from which the goods were exported or a colony, dependent territory, trustee territory, or protectorate of it;
(b) the giving of favourable taxation treatment to producers or exporters of a particular product or favourable taxation treatment to growers, processors or sellers of any raw material or raw materials embodied in a particular product, whether such raw material or raw materials originated in the country from which the goods were exported or a colony, dependent territory, trustee territory, or protectorate of it.
In line 25, after "currencies," to insert:
or the granting of loans or other credit facilities in respect of raw materials.
In line 26, to leave out "has" and to insert:
loans or other credit facilities have.
There could then be a general discussion on all four Amendments.
May I point out that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has not been selected.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Dr. King. It would be very much for the convenience of the Committee, I submit, and would ultimately save a great deal of time, if we might have your permission to include in the general discussion to which you alluded the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). to leave out lines 28 to 31 at the end of Clause 1.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would save time in discussion, but the Amendment to which he refers is not in order.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. The arrangement you propose, Dr. King, is very satisfactory to us. I merely wish to know whether the Amendment actually under discussion would be the Amendment standing in my name?

The Temporary Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Cronin: It would probably be convenient to the Committee if, in addition to moving the Amendment in page 2, line 20, I were to move the other two Amendments—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will move only the first Amendment, but in the debate on it we can discuss and talk about the others.

Mr. Cronin: The purpose of this Amendment and those Amendments which I have not moved is simply to ensure that the Board of Trade, when considering the question of bounties and subsidies, will take into consideration loans or credit facilities in respect of raw materials.
This might seem rather like an attempt to gild the lily, but I hope to advance reasons which will show that this is to be taken as a serious Amendment. I was fortified to find that the roving eye of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had lit upon raw materials, and that he regarded this matter as providing an important loophole in the Bill which should be stopped up.
The Committee is, I am sure, familiar with the fact that fiscal legislation is almost always followed by attempts to find ways of escaping a loss of prospective profit; and frequently a Finance Bill is followed by amending Clauses in the next Finance Bill to deal with a loophole which has to be stopped up. It therefore seems desirable that we should make the Bill as water-tight as possible. Here we have a serious gap which could be used by people with reprehensible intentions for getting indirect bounty or subsidy.
Clause 1 (3), unamended, simply makes it compulsory for the Board of Trade to consider the giving of direct or indirect bounties or subsidies. I suggest that a loan or a credit facility on exceptionally favourable, or even comparatively favourable, terms is also the equivalent of a bounty or subsidy. The economic principle involved is the very

simple one that jam today is worth substantially more than jam tomorrow. In other words, if a credit is given—if a payment due in, say, a year's time is given immediately—it is equivalent to giving rather more than the sum involved.
To take an example, suppose that a grower of a raw material or someone who mines a raw material requires a loan of £1,000 for a year. Normally, he would have to pay, say, 6 per cent. interest and, therefore, would pay about £60. If, however, the £1,000 loan were given to him at a favourable figure—say, at an interest rate of 2 per cent.—he would be in pocket to the extent of £40. That is a rather elementary arithmetical example to illustrate the point, but it is clear that a subsidy or bounty could be given indirectly simply by giving a loan at a particularly low rate of interest.
It might be that the prospective grower or miner of a raw material might not be a very credit-worthy person; it might normally be necessary for the market to charge an even higher rate of interest. In that case, if he is given credit on low interest at favourable terms, he would have the equivalent of a direct bounty or subsidy.

Mr. Nabarro: What is the position of a nationalised industry which has capital provided or perhaps a loan from the Government on exceptionally preferential terms, as in France, for example, in the case of certain motor car factories? Is that a subsidy?

Mr. Cronin: I do not think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster has read the Bill with the care that he should have done. The point is that the Board of Trade has a discretion and is not bound to take action. Quite obviously, an enlightened President of the Board of Trade, such as we hope the present occupant of the office will be, would not take any action against a nationalised industry such as those of France unless it was exceptionally against the national interest.

Mr. Nabarro: I am following the hon. Member's argument closely. It is the fact that a French Renault car would be in competition with a British Morris car. If the British Motor Corporation has to pay for the capital in its undertaking producing the Morris car the normal commercial money market rates for the capital employed, but the French capital


used by its competitor, Renault, is subscribed by the Government on extremely preferential terms, that amounts to a subsidy to the French nationalised undertaking. That is the point I want to put to the hon. Member.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Does the hon. Member suggest nationalising the motor car industry here?

Mr. Nabarro: That observation is very stupid. In the case of Britain, our motor firms are not nationalised. In the case of the French concern to which I have referred, it is nationalised.

Mr. Blackburn: I was only asking the hon. Member if his solution was nationalisation.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the Committee will proceed in the ordinary way by speeches rather than by cross-questioning and interruption.

Mr. Cronin: I will reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, but I hope that these stentorian interventions will be kept to the minimum. They add a certain life to our proceedings, but if continued indefinitely they become somewhat tedious. I take the point made by the hon. Member. That is something which the President of the Board of Trade will have to consider when the right hon. Gentleman uses his discretion to take appropriate action. I do not, however, think that it would be proper for me to tell the Board of Trade what it should do in advance of a circumstance like that.
To return to my argument, another example is the possibility that a grower or miner of a raw material might have to raise an issue of ordinary shares to obtain capital. That would mean that every year he would have to dispense with a substantial part of his profits to the new holders of the equity. If instead he could get a loan under favourable terms, that again would mean that he would have the equivalent of a constant bounty or subsidy year after year.
I have given some hypothetical examples, but we know that loans and credit facilities under exceptionally favourable terms are being used at this very day more or less to subsidise goods for export. On Second Reading the

point was made that growers of cotton in the Belgian Congo export their cotton to Belgium very cheaply and that as a result the Belgians can export carpets and undercut our market here. The hon. Member for Kidderminster made, I thought, a very moving appeal on behalf of the carpet manufacturers.
I do not think it is generally known that the cotton growers in the Belgian Congo receive credit facilities from their banks at a very much lower rate of interest than in the market generally, and that, of course, constitutes a bounty or subsidy. In these days, when we are dealing with the Iron Curtain countries, where indirect subsidies of this nature can be given with considerable ease and no protest whatever, we have to be particularly careful because those countries are increasingly using trade as an instrument in the cold war. It is very important, therefore, that we should ensure that there is no gap which could be used as a weapon by those countries.
We shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment if the President of the Board of Trade can find an alternative Amendment which would be equally helpful. I am sure the President will agree that we on this side are trying to be as co-operative and helpful as possible about the Bill, particularly as it seemed from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that the President is dealing with an incipient rebellion rather similar in type to the rebellion that incommoded the Government before Christmas. Naturally, we feel some sympathy with him. We want to help the President as much as we can, and if he can produce an Amendment to the same effect we shall be quite happy to withdraw ours and leave the matter to him.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that there is no difference—certainly not in intention—between his Amendment and ours, and I should not like the hon. Gentleman to deliver a very heavy and unnecessary attack upon us for something which is not really intended to be different. I do not doubt that he has other things he wishes to say with which he will take up the time of the Committee.
There is, I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will agree, a real difficulty here. In general, we are agreed that to come under this Bill goods, to be dumped, must be exported abroad at a price cheaper than that at which they are selling at home. There is, however, the possibility that their price may be artificially depressed both at home and for export. That is conceivable. The importing of such goods would be dumping in the ordinary layman's sense of the word but it would not be dumping within the terms of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster mentioned the possibility that a nationalised industry in a foreign country might receive subsidies for selling its goods both in the home market and in the export market at what was really an artificially depressed price. Those goods would not, however, come under the terms of the Bill, because there has to be a differential between the home and export prices to bring the goods under the Bill.
We do not want to extend the terms of the Bill improperly, but we do want to meet what is a real subsidy or dumping that can harm unnecessarily, and with no advantage to us here, our industries in this country, and unless some Amendment such as this one is made, or an Amendment, indeed, like that of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, though it is ours we are discussing, the Bill will have a great defect in it.
There is also the consideration—and I think that this was what the hon. Member for Kidderminster was primarily thinking about in his Second Reading speech—that some subsidies are concealed and are very difficult to detect, but, none the less, exist. He mentioned the case of cheap credits from the Belgian banks to the cotton growers in the Belgian Congo, or subsidies to the producers of cotton in the Belgian Congo which enable the textile manufacturers in Belgium to get their raw materials far cheaper than anyone else in the world can. Of course, they are subsidies. Whether they are subsidies by the Government or private persons does not matter. Those subsidies would not be subsidies as defined by the Bill as it stands, and if the Bill is to extend to subsidies of that sort we must extend the Bill in this way which we propose.
There is the further consideration that credits can be given to exporters, as, for

instance, by the United States Export-Import Bank. Cheap credit, or very long credit, which comes to the same thing, can be given against which other exporters in the world cannot compete, and that means that American exporters are receiving a subsidy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) pointed out, for they get credit more cheaply than normally one can get it, or get it on longer terms than one can normally get.
If we are to make the Bill cover those things we must extend it in this sort of way. As I have told the right hon. Gentleman many times, we on this side of the Committee are not desirous of extending its terms in such a way as to smuggle in, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) wants to smuggle in, protection. We do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman at all about this, but we do want to cover genuine dumping and genuine subsidisation and we do not think that the Clause, unamended, will do so.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for his words of consolation. My wish in this matter is that the apprehensions expressed so cogently from many quarters of this Chamber during Second Reading are met by suitable Amendments of the Bill now, during Committee. It is true that there is very little difference in principle, between the Amendment of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and that standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, except, if I may say so with due modesty, that our Amendment is a great deal more explicit and a great deal more detailed. It has real advantages, as I shall show in a few moments.
It would be a mistake to confuse, while we are debating this very complicated issue, three separate though related considerations. The first of those is the question of loans and credits. The second is the question of taxation advantages and favourable terms for taxation purposes. The third is the subsidy for raw materials subsequently embodied in a manufactured article or commodity which finds its way into the United Kingdom in the form of an import. I submit that they are separate considerations


though related, and I would plead for the indulgence of the Committee in addressing a few remarks to each of those separate, though related, considerations.
First, as to the question of loans and credit facilities, it is true that credit facilities for exports are available in manufacturing countries on widely diverse terms. They may be available in one country very much more cheaply than in another. I do not think that any form of words within this Bill could possibly cover contingencies of that kind. When I talk of credit facilities I mean that I as an exporter in Britain may wish to send manufactured goods to Argentina and have to expect to wait six or eight or twelve months to receive my payment, and I may have to finance that transaction, and I may have to pay 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. or more, according to the risk entailed in the market. One of my foreign competitors may then find a merchant banker in his exporting country prepared to finance his transaction on cheaper terms. That is a question of commerce, I submit, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend could conceivably find any form of words to cover differentials of that kind. It is for that reason that I deprecate the form of words used in the Opposition Amendment.
The question of loans, however, is another matter entirely. What are loans within the context of the Amendment? Are they loans in the form of capital, or are they short-term loans to promote exports from the manufacturing country and merely to tide the exporter over the relatively short time until he receives his payment from his customer? Which are they?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Both.

Mr. Nabarro: Both. I have dealt with the first type of loan in what I said a moment ago. It is impossible, in my opinion, to find a form of words to cover that. On the capital subscription point, I hope to say something in a non-political party spirit about the difference between a nationalised undertaking in one country and a private enterprise competitor in another.
It would be possible for a nationalised manufacturing concern in a foreign country to secure loans in the form of capital from its own domestic Govern-

ment on terms of interest which were much more favourable than a private enterprise competitor in this country could secure by borrowing on the open money market. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), in somewhat disingenous terms, I thought, suggested that that was a good reason for nationalising the motor car industry.
I do not wish to dwell on the wider philosophy of whether that is a good thing or not, but I suggest that it is manifestly impossible to try, within the terms of a British Bill, to legislate for diverse variations in the terms of capital subscriptions, which are, in effect, longterm loans, and which obviously exist in manufacturing countries competing with one another. That is why I deprecate the Opposition Amendments.
I want to add the reasons why the Amendments in my name and those of some of my hon. Friends are essentially different in character. They are designed specifically to deal with the second and third considerations which I mentioned at the outset of my speech. Let us take, for example, the second consideration—the question of taxation. I will quote extremes in the benefits that the foreign competing manufacturer can enjoy in taxation arrangements as compared with our taxation arrangements in Britain.
Until relatively recently the West Germans were given a direct abatement of corporation taxation, in respect of exports. It has now been stopped by common consent and as a result of action by the British Government, as it was held to be a contravention of the terms and spirit of G.A.T.T. But there are other foreign countries which do not subscribe to G.A.T.T. which may seek to do likewise and grant reduction of taxation related to the exports and over which, therefore, we would have no direct or indirect jurisdiction in the preferential fiscal arrangements made. The exporters in such a country would thus enjoy advantages which competing British firms do not enjoy. There is an indirect form of subsidy there, to a foreign competitor of ours. Such would be a blatant case.
May I quote a much more obscure case and one with which it is much more difficult to deal? I refer to Belgium. It will be common knowledge that an important part of manufacturing costs is the depreciation allowance granted for taxation


purposes on the plant, machinery and equipment. In this country our manufacturers have always laboured under the disadvantage that the Inland Revenue depreciation allowances are applicable to the historical cost of the plant. If plant had been installed in pre-war years the amount of depreciation is related to the pre-war cost, but the cost has risen three or four times, according to the type of plant, in the meantime, and the manufacturer does not obtain a commensurately larger annual sum in depreciation, for tax purposes.
The Belgians, very wisely, at the end of the war deliberately allowed all their manufacturers to double or more the value of plant standing on their books, to take account of inflation during the war years. The result is that the Belgian manufacturers' depreciation allowance for taxation purposes annually is much greater than that which is granted for comparable plant in this country. This is a matter which has been often ventilated in chartered accountancy circles when complaints are made about the basis of depreciation of assets for taxation purposes in relation to historical cost. It is indisputable that the Belgian carpet manufacturer, using an elderly loom, will have a substantial advantage over his British counterpart and will, in effect, have a taxation subsidy.
The persons whom I am primarily trying to catch with paragraph (b) of my Amendment in page 2, line 20—
the giving of favourable taxation treatment…
are any foreign competitors who gain a direct abatement of taxation on exports as part of a deliberate fiscal policy from that country, thereby giving the manufacturers of that country an unfair advantage over their British counterparts.
The first part of the Amendment I consider to be the more important—the question of
the giving of any special subsidy on the growing, processing or sale of any raw material…
I readily confess that this part of the Amendment is exploratory in character.
5.45 p.m.
I have read the Bill a hundred times and have studied it in the most minute detail and I still cannot understand

whether raw materials are included in the generic term "goods." For example, in Clause 1 (1, b) the words used are:
…some Government or other authority outside the United Kingdom has been giving a subsidy affecting goods of any description which are being or have been imported into the United Kingdom.
I am not sure whether the words "affecting goods" mean that if a subsidy is applied to a raw material which subsequently is embodied in manufactured goods, that would fall within the ambit of the words which I have read out.
That was the gravamen of the case which I put on Second Reading concerning Belgian cotton carpets and which evidently has rather captured the imagination of the Committee, because almost every speech today has referred to it. I think that I can say with due modesty that it was a very good example and one which may be widely applied to other manufactured goods, for many manufacturers are suffering from the same disability.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, when he replied to me at the end of the debate, was generous indeed. He said, referring to me:
I had the misfortune not to be present when he was speaking and now he has elected to have the good fortune to have absented himself while I am speaking. As it may be that the rest of the House does not share the enthusiastic interest of my hon. Friend in Belgian carpets, I can deal with him on a more informal basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 125.]
I want to correct my right hon. and learned Friend. The House of Commons is very interested in Belgian cotton carpets.
I did not know what his "informal basis" meant, so I rang up his secretary and asked, "Please get your boss to write a full explanation." This is what my right hon. and learned Friend wrote. The Committee ought to be stimulated by his words of wisdom and elucidation which I have his permission to quote:
…You then raised the question about the use of the powers in the Bill we were debating in relation to imports of Belgian cotton carpets. Again, I cannot say at this stage what the prospect is of imposing an antidumping or countervailing duty on these goods: clearly, we cannot and should not consider individual cases before the Bill becomes law. Once this has happened, however, it will be open to the carpet manufacturers to apply


to the Board of Trade for the imposition of a duty, supporting their case by evidence necessary to meet the criteria in the Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend's explanations are impeccable and I am entirely in agreement with him. He goes on:
In this connection, I can say that, if there is, in fact, a subsidy, however indirect, given by the Belgian or Belgian Congo Government or a quasi-governmental body to the producers of raw cotton in the Congo, the Bill would be capable of dealing with the practice. This would be achieved by Clause I (1, b): the carpets exported to the United Kingdom would have been affected by a subsidy given by the Government or other authority outside the United Kingdom. The Bill could not operate against this practice, however, if the subsidy were only privately given, for example, by one section of industry to another or by a bank in the normal course of its commercial activities.
As a result of the statement in that letter, my right hon. and learned Friend has said, in effect—I want him to correct me at once if I am wrong in that interpretation—that if it is demonstrated that a raw material, subsequently embodied in a manufactured article or commodity, has become at an earlier stage the object of a Government subsidy or quasi-Government subsidy, the operation of this Bill may be called into effect and antidumping duties in this country may be imposed on the manufactured article referred to.

Mr. H. Rhodes: This is very important—

Mr. Nabarro: I would not be quoting my right hon. and learned Friend were it not important.

Mr. Rhodes: —because the Belgian Congo is subject to edicts from the home Government and is told at what price its cotton is to be sold to the Belgian manufacturers. Does that come into it at all?

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, I think it does, and I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend has covered that point.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) for attaching such great importance to it. It is a critical part of this Bill and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) did less than justice to me when he inferred that my Amendment was not sufficiently explicit. If he studies the last few words of each paragraph of my Amendment he

will find that they are identical. The words are:
…or raw materials originated in the country from which the goods were exported or a colony, dependent territory, trustee territory, or protectorate of it.
Hon. Gentlemen may question why the words "trustee territory" are there. They are included to catch the case of RuandaUrundi, which was a League of Nations mandate until the United Nations decided to call it a Trustee Territory. It is a cotton grower, and the veiled subsidy conditions to which I referred in my Second Reading speech apply to the cotton grown there. Subsequently, that cotton finds its way to the Belgian cotton manufacturers, who are then able themselves to sell Belgian cotton carpets in this country at prices lower than the raw material content alone and by itself in the British carpet counterpart. That is what is putting British carpet weavers on short-time and out of work. Therefore, I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the fact that raw materials come within the ambit of the Bill, but, in view of the uncertainties, I ask that my Amendments—which are much more explicit than the Bill—shall be written into it at this or at a later stage.
Before I sit down, I will leave carpets and come to a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), who is in Paris on Parliamentary business, has asked me to raise for him. It concerns the raw materials of another industry somewhat analogous in principle to the British carpet industry. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will understand that the terms of this Bill are causing grave apprehensions to many trades and industries, the manufacturers in which just do not understand exactly what the Bill seeks to do.
As an example, I will quote from a memorandum submitted to my hon. Friend, and thus to me, from the United Tanners' Federation on behalf of the leather manufacturing interests of this country. They write:
Restrictions on the export of raw materials are not considered unfair export assistance.
That is exactly contrary to what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his letter to me. The memorandum continues:
The raw hide or skin represents about 70 per cent. of the value of the finished leather and for this reason any tampering with the price of the raw material has a far greater


effect on the price of the finished product than in most other industries.…Countries such as India and France, by restricting or prohibiting the export of raw material, cause an artificial surplus which enables their tanners to produce at below the world market price. The industry maintains that to ignore Government export assistance of this type and extent is completely to destroy the value of the Bill as a protection against dumping of leather from these countries.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the Committee that precisely the same conditions apply to this matter as apply to the carpet industry, in so far as the ingredient raw materials in the manufactured article are concerned.
I have put a case which, I think, is widely supported in all parts of the Committee. I plead with my right hon. and learned Friend that there shall be written into this Bill explicit conditions to make it possible to impose anti-dumping duties, first, in the event of subsidies upon raw materials being given to foreign manufacturers and, secondly, in respect to favourable taxation treatment given to foreign manufacturers.

Sir D. Eccles: We have had an interesting discussion on these important Amendments. This is a complicated subject and I will do my best to explain why I think that, on balance, the Bill is all right as it is.
Subsection (3) of Clause 1 deals with subsidies and, of course, the Bill is in two parts. Part of it is against dumping, and in that case it is necessary, before there can be a duty imposed, to establish the difference between the export price and the fair market price. The other part of the Bill, with which we are dealing only here, is concerned with goods that come into this country subsidised. In that case, there is no need to establish what is the price in the country of origin at which similar goods are being sold. We have only to establish that a subsidy has been used to reduce the price of the imported goods which are causing material injury to one of our established sources of supply.
As I understand, it has always been impossible to define completely and to the satisfaction of everybody exactly what is meant by a subsidy. In this part of the Bill, we are following Article VI of G.A.T.T., which makes no attempt to define a subsidy closely, but states that it is a bounty or subsidy which has been granted
…directly or indirectly, on the manufacture, production or export of such product…

Mr. Cronin: What paragraph?

Sir D. Eccles: Paragraph 2. The Article states that a countervailing duty may be imposed' where the form of that subsidy has been of special assistance to the transport of the goods.
The Committee will see that in subsection (3, a) we have reproduced that, and it is one of the only two qualifications of what is meant by "subsidy" in the Bill. The paragraph reads:
the giving of any special subsidy on the transport of a particular product…
Then, in paragraph (b) we have also included the case of currency manipulation.
The reason for making those two definitions of subsidy is that they are really outside the actual manufacturing cost or the production of the raw material; that is to say, transport and currency manipulation might not be caught by the generally accepted definition of a subsidy, and, therefore, we thought it right, following Article VI of G.A.T.T., to put those two exceptional definitions in the Bill.
6.0 p.m.
Beyond that, when one comes to the more straightforward notion of what a subsidy is, it is really anything that can be construed as being directly or indirectly of assistance to the manufacture, production or export of a product, and that would cover the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) in his Amendment and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in his.
Perhaps I might deal, first, with the point about loans and credit. It is true that by financial assistance of one kind or another a Government can cheapen the export price of some of the products of its territory, and in certain cases where it is extremely clear and blatant, where there are large, manifest subsidies on production, I have no doubt that we should consider the matter. However, I think that the hon. Member for Loughborough will appreciate that in the sort of case which he raised, where a bank gives a loan at 2 per cent. instead of 6 per cent., where the credit-worthiness of the borrower comes in and where the loan is


£1,000, it is really not possible for the Bo6ard of Trade to go to a foreign country and discuss the credit-worthiness of a certain borrower, or, indeed, the rate of interest at which he borrows his money. We must leave that, in general, to the ordinary course of business.
On the subject of the nationalised industries, what has been said is, indeed, true. I would go further than my hon. Friend has gone. In this country we have a nationalised system of transport which every year makes a large loss which is covered by the taxpayers. I have not the slightest doubt that under the definition of the Bill all our transport would be considered to be subsidised, because Parliament votes money which covers the losses made by nationalised industries. Therefore, it goes extremely wide.
When we come to the problem about raw materials, I think the difficulty experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Rams-den), who is interested in tanners, arises from the distinction between subsidies and dumped goods. It is possible for the raw materials of goods to have been subsidised, but not the manufactured products themselves: the leather goods or carpets to be dumped in this country might be selling in Belgium at the same price as here. But we could catch that case under not the anti-dumping provisions but the subsidy provisions of the Bill. If we could find an effective instrument by which the Customs could identify subsidised raw cotton in made-up shirts or carpets, it would be possible under the Bill to come to the House for an order to a duty. I do not know how it could be done.

Mr. Rhodes: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman right away how it could be done. He should alter Clause 5. I should like to explain later how it can be done.

Sir D. Eccles: I always listen with respect to anything that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has to say about how to do something in connection with the cotton trade, and perhaps he will tell us later on how to do it. What I want to stress is that where it is clear that the raw material content of a manufactured product coming here has been subsidised, we can do something about it under the Bill if it is practicable

to identify the subsidised part of the product when it enters this country.
Having put those points to the Committee, I must say that I do not believe that we should gain by trying to go further in defining what we mean by "a subsidy" than I have gone in relation to the two special cases of transport and currency manipulation. If we incorporated the substance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Loughborough or the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, it would, perhaps, make it more difficult to get the courts to consider that other kinds of subsidies not defined in the Bill are, in fact, subsidies. The more we try to particularise about what a subsidy is, the more difficult it is in relation to other brands of bounties, and so on, which we have omitted. I think it is clear that the wide phraseology used in the G.A.T.T. Article, and more or less reproduced in the Bill, covers all these things.
I should have liked to accept one of the Amendments if I could, but I do not think that I should improve the Bill by doing so. The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster would not, as it stands, do all that he wants. He refers only to the case where the raw material originates in a colony, dependent territory, trustee territory or protectorate of the manufacturing country. We intend the Bill to go wider than that. It might be that the Belgian manufacturer obtained his material from Japan or some other country, but not one of Belgium's dependent territories. We should, therefore, have to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and it would have to be widened.
We have had a very short time in which to consider the extremely difficult question whether it is in the national interest to try to define "a subsidy" more closely than is done in the Bill. I am not at all sure that it is. However, if the Amendments might be withdrawn, I will, before the next stage, without giving any undertaking, consider whether it would be worth while to enlarge upon the definition. I can, of course, give an assurance that all that hon. Gentlemen have said that they wished to be done in relation to the definition of "a subsidy" we can do already, and it is our intention to interpret "a subsidy" as covering those points.

Mr. Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up the point of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about the importation of certain leather skins from a number of countries? On Second Reading I raised the question of calf skins from France. I take it that the kind of concealed subsidy which those imports have cannot be dealt with under the Bill because of the last sentence in Clause 1. The hon. Member for Kidderminster appeared to be under the impression, as the result of the letter which he received from the Minister of State, that they might be dealt with in the same way as the cotton in the Belgian carpets.
The point is that the countries from which these skins come restrict the export of the skins and so falsely depress the price in the home market, thus enabling manufacturers of leather goods in the home market to take part in the export trade at a great advantage. For instance, calf skin goods manufacturers in France are getting their raw material far more cheaply than it can be bought by manufacturers in this country. That is because of the restrictions on exports. Manufacturers in this country therefore believe that they are unfairly placed. It is a concealed subsidy by price control or export control. I take it that we cannot deal with that kind of practice under the Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: I want to thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for so clearly bringing out the position of these raw materials, to which I referred and which attract some form of subsidy and which are subsequently embodied in manufactured goods exported to this country. I am very satisfied with what my right hon. Friend has said, because it covers the case of Belgian cotton carpets. He has completely exploded the misconception of the United Tanners' Federation, the tanning industry and the leather industry, which was to the general effect that raw materials were ultra vires the provisions of the Bill. He has now said that as long as the definition of dumping is satisfied, then the raw materials to which the tanners referred are included.

Mr. Rhodes: Does this apply to Indian cotton, also? That seems to be on all fours with Belgian cotton about which the hon. Member for Kidderminster has been talking.

Sir D. Eccles: I am glad to have the opportunity to make this clear. I did not realise that skins for tanners were on the same footing as Indian cotton, a case which we discussed last time. Of course, it is quite correct that paragraph (b) excludes that form of assistance. The former Minister of State, Board of Trade. in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, made quite clear the reason for doing that. It is quite simple. We do it in this country with steel. It is a practice which is operated in the interests of large industries and we do not think that it would be wise to include it in our definition of a subsidy.
However, if the tanners or leather manufacturers can bring a case to show that a definite protection subsidy has been paid on the skins used in that country. that is a different thing, but the Bill does not include
…the application of restrictions or charges on the export of materials from any country so as to favour producers in that country…

Mr. Nabarro: The cases of steel and skins are not analogous in this context, but entirely different. For example, the French Government impose a ceiling price at which the skins may be sold, to create an artificial surplus and hence low prices. That artificial surplus may then be exported and dumped. I believe that such a contingency would come within the provisions of the Bill, notwithstanding the words which my right hon. Friend has just read. However, that is not the case with steel. We do not impose control on steel in this country in order to keep the price of steel artificially low.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Oh, yes, we do.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: Oh, no, we do not. If we did that by Government action, it would connote a loss in the sale of steel. We do not do that. We impose a control which facilitates steel being sold at the full economic prices. The fact that we happen to sell steel overseas at a premium, as we do in certain cases, has no bearing on the case. The imposition of a price ceiling to keep the price of skins artificially low and create a surplus, which is the French practice, and our imposing a maximum price at which steel may be sold, which is for general economic reasons, but certainly not to create a surplus, are entirely different matters.
I am satisfied from what my right hon. Friend has said that the case of skins may well come within the provisions of the Bill. I propose to write to the United Tanners' Federation tomorrow morning, send to them a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and invite them to ask the President of the Board of Trade for further elucidation. Skins are not largely processed, neither is leather largely manufactured, in Kidderminster.

Mr. Rhodes: We must get this matter clear. We have been told that the Bill excludes raw materials such as cotton from India and we have had it explained that that is because the same principle applies to steel and coal. We then had another explanation, that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was out of order, because it was lost on the Money Resolution, that the Ways and Means Resolution already prevented it coming before the Committee. Which reason is it? Is it the Ways and Means Committee decision?

Mr. Walker-Smith: On a Bill which is introduced as the result of a Ways and Means Resolution, the Committee is bound by the terms of the Resolution. That is the technical reason why the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was out of order. If the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) wants to know why the Ways and Means Resolution was framed in that way, he will see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Black-pool, North (Mr. Low), in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, which I quoted on Second Reading, referred to the practice in regard to the steel industry in this country as a reason why it was appropriate for us to limit our action in the Ways and Means Resolution in that way.

Mr. Rhodes: Does it mean that the Indian cotton question, which has been raised here many times, cannot be considered in the context of the Bill? Let us have an answer to that. Can it or not?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: In case there should be the misconception that the Committee is in

favour of incorporating Amendments which may be restrictive, I should like to support my right hon. Friend and to say that after long experience of this sort of thing it is my view that it would be very much better to leave the Bill as it is. If extra words are inserted, the lawyers will decide that something more must be left out. If the words are left as vague and as wide as possible, as they are now, in the end it will be better for all of us who have the same object in mind, the prevention of dumping and subsidisation of all kinds. The wider it is, the better.

Mr. Cronin: I heard the speech of the President of the Board of Trade with some dismay. I gathered from what he said that he thought that his Department need not be cognisant of such matters as the rate of interest of countries overseas who exported goods to us. I was very surprised to hear that. I thought that the Board of Trade would watch these matters. It is discouraging to hear the right hon. Gentleman adopting this sort of lackadaisical attitude towards them. With the help of the Foreign Service he could have obtained this information quite easily. One wonders whether the Board of Trade will adopt the same slapdash attitude.
I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the more vaguely the Bill is worded the better. In a few years' time High Court judges will have great difficulty in understanding what is intended by the Bill. They will read it with corrugated brows, and the only conclusion they will come to is that the right hon. Gentleman himself is not sure what is intended. Nevertheless, we have had an assurance that he will look into the matter and see whether he can clarify it further, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Major Legge-Bourke: Before we part with the Clause I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some observations which I believe to be of extreme importance and relevance to our debates on the various Amendments. These observations were included in the Report of the Committee on Horticultural Marketing, which has just been published. I should like to quote a few sentences from


a paragraph in page 126 of the Report. The Committee was precluded by its terms of reference from going in detail into the question whether or not there should be protection for horticulture, but it made a point of giving its views upon the relative merits of quotas and tariffs.
In our discussion of one of the earlier Amendments I raised the question of the ease with which the quota method could be used to undercut the home market to a very considerable extent. In his reply the President of the Board of Trade did not comment upon this question. I gave an example of Italian pears coming in under quota, the quota being based upon current market prices. The quantity of pears imported could amount to as much as double what the permit for the quota would have entitled the exporters to send in. After that, the exporter in Italy is recouped by the placing of a higher price upon some other commodity which is not subject to quota restrictions. The transaction could go through completely outside the terms of the Bill and, as far as one knows, could never be brought within it under the discretionary powers which the Clause gives to the Board of Trade.
That emphasises the truth of the statement made in the report of the Runciman Committee. In paragraph 503 it says:
For the reasons indicated, quotas are an unsuitable form of protection for horticultural commodities If, however, protection is by tariffs. the trade can adjust itself to them and yet still operate freely, and producers can be given reasonable certainty of the conditions under which the imports to the United Kingdom will be made.
The penalty arising out of offences committed under the Clause will be by means of tariff, and I think that most of us believe that the tariff is probably the best weapon in the long run.
I cannot allow the Clause to go through without making this comment upon what my right hon. Friend has said about the future. We must reconsider what we are going to do if and when the Bill becomes an Act, and if and when a European free trade area is set up. with a sort of inner circle of Messina Powers operating a common market. Whatever else we may say there is no question but that the offences specified in the Clause are of the utmost importance. I believe that the effectiveness of the Clause will depend entirely upon whether or not we are

going to use it simply, as my hon. Friend said—using a very colourful metaphor during the Second Reading debate—as a notice saying, "Beware of the dog. He bites dumpers and subsidisers", or as a deliberate instrument of policy to try to deter.
It is conceivable that if the Board of Trade were really vigorous in investigating the imports now coming in—with G.A.T.T. as it is—the Bill would give it power to deal effectively with the situation, but if it is to rely upon the Bill purely as a kind of longstop, only to be implemented with the greatest reluctance, it will not have the desired result. It certainly will be very far from adequate if and when a European free trade area is set up. For that reason I can only deplore, and ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider, what he said this afternoon about that part of our trade which is neither Commonwealth nor Empire.
Unless we have the right to discriminate among the various sections of our trade we shall never have a hope of reaching that blessed state of prosperity with which the Liberal Party will be satisfied, when we can once more enjoy a policy of free trade.

Mr. Boyd: As we are badly behind our time schedule I shall be as brief as I can. I ask the Minister to add one assurance to those which have already been given by him and the Minister of State. We have been told that the Government do not wish to use the power given by this Bill more than necessary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist the efforts of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) to persuade him in this direction. So far, they have given assurances only of what one might describe as a negative type. They say that they will not use these powers unnecessarily.
I invite the President of the Board of Trade to add that in cases where he is unable to prevent an unfair trade practice being used against this country and causing injury to an established source of supply he will not only use these powers but will then get in touch with the Government concerned and see whether he can negotiate arrangements which will enable him to dispense with the countervailing duties that he has found necessary. That is what I am after.
the right hon. Gentleman has given what is virtually an undertaking to this effect regarding Commonwealth countries. He has made it clear that there will be Board of Trade examinations in detail immediately after establishing these countervailing duties, so that there will be quite a lot of work done by the Board of Trade in any case. I ask him to assure us that included in that examination will be an attempt in consultation with the Government of the country from which the dumped or subsidised goods are corning to see whether it is possible to devise arrangements which will make possible the scrapping of the countervailing duties.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I wish to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend a matter which I heard of yesterday and which I consider important as it concerns the manufacture of building board in this country. There is a danger that the industry may face subsidised competition from overseas and that such competition may be subsidised in a manner which it will make it difficult to discover exactly where the subsidy is applied.
Everyone knows that the main supplier of imported building board to this country is Sweden, although there are a number of other European countries from which we import it. I understand that part of the industry in Sweden, probably the greater part, is nationalised. There are a number of free enterprise firms which also operate, but the part which is nationalised includes not only the manufacture of the building board but the ownership of the forests from which the timber is obtained and the mills which process it. In fact, the whole operation is completely under Goverment control.
Subsection (2, a) of this Clause would probably enable the Board of Trade to determine the fair market price of the goods in Sweden so long as there is some privately-owned industry operating on a free market. I gather that there is some danger—at least, hon. Members on this side of the Committee would consider it a danger—of the whole of the Swedish industry eventually being nationalised. In those circumstances, there may no longer be a free market on which the goods are sold in Sweden, and then it may prove difficult for my right hon.
Friend to determine where the subsidy is being applied.
Some of the building board imported into this country from Sweden is offered at a lower price than our manufacturers can quote. It is difficult for any firm in this country to find out where the Swedish subsidy is being applied, if there is a subsidy, or how they are being undercut by their nationalised Swedish competitors. This matter has been brought to my notice by a firm in my constituency which manufactures building board, but I do not think that it has been brought to the notice of the Building Board Manufacturers' Association. At any rate, I have not received any representations from the Association.
I have been supplied by the Association with rather interesting figures of the production of building board in this country and that imported from abroad. Production in this country has increased steadily in the last five years. In the case of hardboard it has increased from 25 million square feet in 1952 to 56 million square feet last year, a very satisfactory rate of progress. Imports of hardboard have also risen steadily from 189 million square feet in 1953 to a maximum of 434 million in 1955. Then there appears to have been a fall off in 1956, although I have figures which relate only to the first eleven months. Possibly there is not much danger at present, but the point which interests the firm in my constituency is whether this Bill will protect the home industry from unfair competition from an industry in a country like Sweden, where it is nationalised, and where it may be difficult to discover exactly where a subsidy is applied.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would examine this matter and see whether it is covered by the terms of the Bill, and whether, if the whole of the Swedish industry became nationalised it would still be covered. If not, would he consider amending the Bill accordingly?

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I wish to express regret at the inclusion of the words in lines 28 to 31 of the Bill. They explicitly prevent any action being taken about what is probably the worst experience of any British industry in the post-war period regarding concealed subsidies. I refer to the problem of the imports of cotton grey cloth from India.
As I said during the debate on the Second Reading, at one time this concealed subsidy represented as much as 25 per cent. of the price of the goods marketed here from India. That is competition which no British industry can face, and manifestly it is unfair. Yet, by including these words in Clause 2, the Government make clear that they do not intend to deal with the problem. This dual pricing of raw material is a growing practice and I believe that it will result in grave danger to us as a manufacturing country.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred to the Kidderminster carpet industry and the competition from Belgium, which is based on cheap raw cotton. He is far more optimistic than I am if he thinks that there will be any action by the Government to deal with the case he has quoted. It is parallel with the problem of the Lancashire textile industry and Indian imports. The Lancashire textile industry has no tariff protection at all against India. At least the Kidderminster carpet industry has a tariff against Belgian imports.
This is a practice which the United States is carrying out in reverse. They are exporting raw material at a lower price than it is sold to the domestic manufacturers. That, again, has brought problems in its train. The result is that Japan, with an efficient, low labour cost industry, is exporting cotton textiles to America based on lower-priced cotton than the American mill owners are using, and, in consequence, there have been threats by America to impose quotas or increase the tariffs on Japanese textiles. On the basis of that threat, the Japanese cotton employers have been obliged to get together with the American cotton employers and come to a quantitative and qualitative agreement about Japanese imports into America.
We are being driven into the same pattern, and a mission from our industry has been to India and is in Hong Kong at the present time. This is a growing trend, and, I believe, a dangerous trend, so far as the long-term interests of this country are concerned. What happens by the inclusion of these words in this Bill is that it is made plain to the world at large that the Government consider dual pricing to be a fair trading practice. If we recognise it as such, I think that very serious

consequences can flow from it for this country in future.
Why does the Board of Trade want to deny itself the power to take action in flagrant cases of this kind? In effect, the Bill tells Lancashire, India and the world that if no agreement is reached the Government will do nothing about it, and that this practice can continue indefinitely. The President of the Board of Trade, in moving the Second Reading, referred, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has reminded the Committee, to the Bill being equivalent to the notice:
Beware of the Dog: He Bites Dumpers and Subsidisers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1457; Vol. 563, c. 63.]
I would suggest that the intention of the President of the Board of Trade and the Government is that this Bill is likely to bite nobody and do nothing, so far as the Western world and the G.A.T.T. countries are concerned. As I interpreted his speech on Second Reading, the paramount purpose of the Bill is to protect the economy of this country against an economic offensive from the Iron Curtain countries. I am not criticising that action, but I do not think we ought to fool ourselves into believing that it is intended to use this Bill except against Iron Curtain countries.
By the inclusion of these words, I suggest that the Iron Curtain countries are better able than any other countries in the world to take advantage of this Clause, and particularly of the words in lines 28 to 31, because they have completely controlled and managed economies, and they would be able to prove, if need be, that they are not subsidising in any respect, but are providing their raw materials to their own industries at cheaper prices and are, therefore, covered by this section of the Bill.
I want to point out on this matter that we are now living in a world which is rapidly industrialising. Countries in Asia and Africa, which, since the industrial revolution in this country have been providers of raw materials, are now starting to industrialise on the pattern established and followed by the Soviet Union, and by China at present. This industrial transformation will be far more rapid in the second half of the twentieth century than it was in the first half. Let us remember that when these countries


start to utilise their own raw materials, then quite probably there will be a shortage of raw materials, as far as established manufacturing countries are concerned, and that the United Kingdom will have a very raw deal in those circumstances.
Let us make no mistake about it. A long-held theory has been exploded. We used to think that it took two, three or four generations to produce skilled workmen, technicians, scientists and industrial administrators, but we have now to note the fact—and we shall be foolish if we do not note it; we should not let our hatred of what happens over there close our eyes to these results—that in the Soviet Union it has been proved that within one generation these people can be produced.
I want to remind the Committee that in the Soviet Union there are between 40 million and 50 million industrial workers who are in the hands of thousands of technicians, scientists and competent industrial administrators, and that more than half of these people are the sons of illiterate peasants. That process will take place in other Asiatic countries, in China in particular, and I seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the policy of recognising as fair trading practice the dual pricing of raw materials is fraught with very grave danger as a long-term policy for this country.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): I wish to refer very briefly to two points and I ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider them.
The first is that, by accepting the Opposition Amendment on the point of threatening material injury, we shall have the position that material injury will be threatened or may be threatened to established British industry, when in all the circumstances it will be in the national interest that something shall be done, but nothing need be done. The powers which the President may exercise are only permissive, and I think it is important that they should be obligatory, or that we should consider now whether or not it would be wise for them to be obligatory.
We do not doubt the intention of the present Government or of the present President of the Board of Trade, but the great day may come when the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and his friends are the Government of the day, and they may not be so keen to act in that way. Therefore. I think that there should be a duty on the Board of Trade to take action when a clear case is established showing detriment to British industry.
The second point has reference to subsection (3), to which a number of Amendments were put forward. I think that my right hon. Friend might possibly find that, if he sticks a little more closely to Article VI (2) of G.A.T.T., he will get more help there on the problem, which is admittedly a very difficult one. with which he is faced. There we are permitted to impose these countervailing duties on any product, and are permitted to impose a duty where the subsidy is applied directly or indirectly to any merchandise.
It seems to me that that covers part of the problem of some of these raw materials cases, which are very difficult, and which have been explored by various hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I think that if the words used in G.A.T.T. are studied with that in view, they might help my right hon. Friend to meet some of the valid points that have been made.

The Chairman: Sir John Barlow. If the hon. Gentleman cares to remain seated, in view of his recent accident, he may do so.

Sir John Barlow: Thank you very much, Sir Charles, but I wish to make only a very brief speech.
It seems to me that both sides of the Committee have this in common—that the opinion that the Bill should protect industry and workpeople in this country is strongly held. That is the great common unity between both sides of the Committee. In looking through this Bill, one wonders whether it has sufficient teeth in it, beginning with Clause 1, which we are at present discussing. We are looking into the question of dumping very late in the day. Other countries, such as Australia, South Africa and Canada, to mention only a few, initiated legislation thirty years ago, and, in practically every


case, they found that it was not strong enough, and periodically had to pass further legislation to give it more teeth.
I have here the Commonwealth Australian Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Acts of 1921 to 1936 and the Tariff Proposals, 1956, and I note that even last year several new sections were added to strengthen the hand of the Government to protect industry in Australia. I understand that the Government of South Africa have gone even further, and we know that the Canadian Government have adopted very strong measures indeed. Are we not starting where they started? Should we not start where they left off and take advantage of their experience? We may not want to go as far as they have gone, but I think that we should have the power.
It is useless to have a Measure of this kind unless the President of the Board of Trade has complete power which he can use quickly. Quickness is the essence of the whole Bill. During the Second Reading debate I mentioned the isolated dumping of goods. I said that it was only too easy for certain types of goods to be imported, to be sold in the shops and consumed before the matter was brought to the attention of the Minister. That problem may present a real difficulty unless my right hon. Friend has strong powers to take action himself rather than being compelled to wait to hear the views of the manufacturer who has been injured, or the trade association.
I urge my right hon. Friend to make this provision stronger than it is now. Following the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), wherein he criticised the Bill for not dealing with the difficulty of competition from Indian cottons, it seems extraordinary to me that my right hon. Friend should indicate that the difficulty about skins will come within the ambit of the Bill, whereas competition from India of a similar kind apparently will not. It seems to me that the two cases are very similar, and I am sure that Lancashire will want to know exactly why Indian cotton is excluded when skins are included.
I wish to refer briefly to the question of a "fair market price" which is mentioned several times in subsection (2). I came across an example a few years ago where country A had exported textiles to

country B and was selling them at the same price in both countries, according to the official figures. It was found, however, that the original selling country A sold a small quantity of goods at a cheap price—the same as the dumped price— but sold the majority of the goods in the home country at a very much higher price. Will the Clause catch a sale of that kind? Perhaps 5 per cent. of the goods were sold at the lower price, but the majority were sold at a far higher figure.
There is in the Clause a reference to the "national interest". Can my right hon. Friend clarify what he means by those words? I think that I know what he may mean, but it might be very different if, in years to come, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) became President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Bolton, West might think that it was in the national interest to encourage the sale of cheap goods. because it would help the consumers and keep the cost of living down, irrespective of the fact that it might destroy whole industries. Different holders of the office which is now held by my right hon. Friend might interpret these words very differently. I should like to know what protection we have.

Sir D. Eccles: It is quite clear from the speeches which have been made that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are much concerned about the Bill. It is a departure for us to have powers of this kind, and I should like to repeat that they are aimed only at unfair practices and are not intended to give additional protection.
It might be right, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has suggested, to consider the degree of protection that the horticultural industry has, but under this Bill that industry can be helped only in circumstances where either dumping or subsidies have been proved. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is certainly my view, which I think will be held everywhere, that horticulture is a separate industry. We should certainly consider it so. Indeed, I think that we shall have to interpret the word "industry" fairly widely when considering material damage. There might be one particular class of goods dumped here


which really injured only one manufacturer, but if it really injured him we should take action. I should hope that I should be allowed under this Bill to go fairly wide on that.
I will not follow what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the prospects of the European free trade area. I have no doubt that another opportunity will occur for a debate on that subject.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Boyd) reminded me that I had said on Second Reading that we would consult Commonwealth countries before using the powers in the Bill against any goods originating in those territories. He asked whether we would do the same in the case of foreign countries. I cannot give a complete assurance, because it might well be that it would be better to talk to the foreign countries through our representatives abroad rather than here. I will certainly try to negotiate that they should stop the practice, because it is far better for all concerned, but I am not prepared to give an assurance that I will warn every country throughout the whole world before we take action. If I did I should very likely destroy the power of speedy action which in connection with certain countries—I should not like to mention names—may be far and away the best chance we have of stopping dumping.

Mr. Boyd: May I explain that I did not mean to ask so much as that any Government should be consulted before we took the necessary action? I can appreciate that many countries outside the Commonwealth might well drag out the negotiations, and we could not afford to await action until we had had discussions with them. I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that when these countervailing duties have been imposed, efforts would be made to use them rather as a bargaining lever to get the dumping or subsidising abolished instead of our being content simply to leave the countervailing duties on.

7.0 p.m.

Sir D. Eccles: Each case would have to be looked at on its merits. I was thinking that in the general run of case it would be to our advantage to bargain and get the practice stopped at the source, in which case we would remove the duty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) mentioned building boards imported from Sweden and asked whether, if the manufacturing industry of that country became nationalised, the provisions of the Bill could be used if it were found that a subsidy had been paid. The answer is "Yes." Of course, it is extremely difficult to know how much subsidy. I mentioned on Second Reading that the more Socialist the economy is the easier it is for the Government concerned to infiltrate into other countries by all kinds of evil practices. It is difficult to say to what degree the products of any nationalised industry have been subsidised. If this is a case which my hon. Friend would like the Board of Trade to look at in detail we should be very glad to do so.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton)—I well understand him—said he was sorry that lines 28 to 31 were in the Clause. We have reason for them. I can only say that in the case of Indian cotton the mission is there trying to come to an agreement for placing an upper limit on the export from India to this country. We must all hope that it will come back successful. It is very difficult to put duties on goods from Commonwealth countries where the form of assistance is an export control of a kind which we practise ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) wished the powers to be mandatory. From the bargaining point of view it is probably better to leave them permissive. There is a great deal of judgment used in these questions. It is a matter of relying on judgment in many cases, for example, to decide how much subsidy is attributable to a certain consignment of goods. It will now be a matter of judgment, in the case of member countries of G.A.T.T., whether material injury has been done to an established source of supply. Where so many questions of that kind have to be decided it is better to leave the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade as a weapon that can be used when it is thought to be clear that an advantage can be secured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), who gallantly made a speech despite his injury which we all hope will soon mend,


thought we were taking these powers very late in the day, and wondered whether they were sufficiently strong to enable us to take speedy and effective action. I think that they are. As soon as an allegation is made of dumping or subsidy, we can come to the House for an Order asking for a duty. There are provisions in the Bill for the repayment of the duty if we make a mistake. That is precisely because we wish to take action without going into a very detailed examination which would stultify the good that the Bill could do.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend was wrong in saying that skins for leather manufacturers were caught by the Bill, whereas Indian cotton was not. As I understood the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the skins would not come under the Bill any more than would the Indian grey cloth. My hon. Friend asked me whether, if a small proportion of the supply of a certain article were sold at a very cheap price in the country of origin in order to establish a low price, whereas the bulk of the supply was sold at a higher price, we would have regard to the small parcel at the cheap price. The answer is "No." We shall have power to ascertain the normal, regular price at which the particular kind of goods is sold.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked the old question, What does "national interest" mean? I have always understood that "national interest" means what Her Majesty's Government think that it means at any particular moment. There is really no other way of defining the national interest. Luckily, both sides of the Committee know pretty well what we mean by it in a broad way, but it is not possible to define it in a Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Rent Bill is not in the national interest, then?

Sir D. Eccles: It may be that I have made some slight mistake on some point here, but I am new to the Bill, as most hon. Members are aware. If so, I will put it right on some other Amendment. I hope that I have answered the questions raised, and that the Committee will now let us have the Clause.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance on the particular point that I raised about the quota

and say whether avoidance of the quota might be caught by Clause 1 (2, a)? Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter before Report, because it is rather important. It would be a good thing to cover the practice by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(ORDERS IMPOSING DUTIES.)

Mr. Remnant: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, after "charged", to insert:
on all such goods from the date of complaint to or investigation by, the Board of Trade".
Certain speeches on Clause 1 and on some of the Amendments to it appeared to be relevant to this Amendment, so perhaps I might be even briefer with this speech than I intended to be. The objects of the Amendment are twofold: exploratory as to the meaning of the paragraph (c) and to show the alarm felt by industries at what they at present understand to be its meaning.
The first part of paragraph (c) refers to
provisions directing that duty be charged for any period or periods.
What exactly does my right hon. Friend mean by "for any period"? It is obvious that an appreciable amount of time must elapse after the original objection or allegation of dumping for the Board of Trade to check figures, and that much may happen in that short time. If the Amendment is inserted, or if the words "for any period" enable my right hon. Friend to backdate the Order to achieve the object sought by the Amendment, I shall be very happy to have an answer to that effect.
Let me give the sort of difficulty and the reasons for delay that I foresee. Who is to lodge the objection? Suppose there are importers, perhaps in a small way, who are not members of their association. Are they to be allowed to lodge an objection or an allegation of dumping with my right hon. Friend, or can these representations come only, as in certain other cases, through an association.
Does my right hon. Friend intend to rely on the Customs? If that be the case the suggested provision that the document should include the average domestic price in the country of origin


would at least make known what was happening, although, obviously, those figures would need checking by the Customs or by my right hon. Friend's Department. Nevertheless, if these duties are to have a deterrent effect—I am sure my right hon. Friend does not wish to use them unless they are necessary—the mere fact of his having power to backdate any duty decided upon would obviously make an intending importer of goods below the corresponding price in the country of origin think twice before he did so.
There are two types of dumping that I have particularly in mind. I will refer to them as rush dumping and intermittent dumping. There was a very good example of rush dumping last year over new potatoes from France, which, I believe, were referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). When it was seen that there was a chance to dump goods in this country quick action was taken by the French Government to take advantage of the opportunity offered. The damage done by that kind of thing does not end when the actual dumping stops, but proceeds into the future planting and production of potatoes.
Intermittent dumping is where the exporter from the other country, certainly in collusion with the importer in this country, seeks to slip two or three shipments of varying sizes in before anyone has awakened to what is happening. Over a year that can have a most unsettling effect, but, if it is known that the Board of Trade is likely to make a retrospective duty on those goods, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that not only would the dumper hesitate but may think the game not worth the candle. In these few remarks, to which I add every emphasis at my command, I commend this Amendment to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. J. Grimston: I wish to support entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) has said. There is a very widespread feeling in industry that the investigation of a complaint into dumping may be protracted not be cause the Board of Trade is not keen to get on with the investigation, but because the Board finds it extremely difficult to get information to arrive at a

proper answer. The dismay which industry feels at the possibility of delay would be greatly alleviated if words of this kind were accepted and if it could be made quite clear that obstruction on the part of the dumper would not enable him to escape the duty he would otherwise have to pay.

7.15 p.m.

Captain Duncan: This is the moment to say what I want to say on this subject, although I could have delayed doing so until we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) in the contention that speed is essential in the apprehension and prevention of dumping. We are not completely satisfied about the apparent contradiction between the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading and the speech of the Minister of State on that occasion. The President seemed to contemplate speedy action when it was necessary. In the Second Reading debate, the President said:
This is what would happen. Someone would lodge a complaint with the Board of Trade that goods were being imported at unfair prices and were likely to injure one of our sources of supply. I should add that the Board could take the initiative itself under this Bill. I doubt if it would do it very often, but it could. However the process was started, the Board would urgently consider whether a prima facie case had been made out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 61.]
I do not want to speak for long, otherwise I would quote more of that speech. The Minister of State said:
The procedure that one would contemplate under the Bill would be something like the following. First, the industry or company affected would make an application to the Board of Trade asking for an order in regard to a specific matter. The Board of Trade would then furnish it with a document showing the relevant data to be established by the industry according to the criteria specified in the Act. The complainant would then assemble his evidence and submit it to the Board of Trade. It would then be for the Board of Trade to decide, first, whether a prima facie case of dumping had been established, and, secondly, whether there was any evidence of material injury which, as I have explained. would, in the case of G.A.T.T. countries, still be relevant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 120.]
There seemed to be a possible divergence of opinion in the Board of Trade. I do not think that there is a divergence, but I want an assurance from my right


hon. Friend that there is not and that it is clearly understood by the Board of Trade that there will be cases, particularly in the horticultural industry, in which speed will be of the essence.
I think it was I, not my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who quoted the case of the French new potatoes last year. The fact that they were imported at that time completely upset the new potato market for the home grower. There was also the case of imported tomatoes, a year or two ago. The Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board made urgent representations to the Board of Trade and action was taken under the powers which then existed.
I am told that in Spain today there is a potential production of over 2 million tons of tomatoes. If the Spaniards saw a chance of exporting tomatoes to this country at 1s. a lb. below our own costs, which might well be below the market price of tomatoes sold in Spain, they would do so. If they did, even under the existing tariff rate, it would be quite impossible for our tomato growers to make a living in this country. There would be material injury to an industry.
I give those two examples to show what might happen in future if the Board of Trade did not act speedily. if it waited to run through the process described by the Minister of State, the industry would be ruined before action was taken. Therefore, I ask that speed should be regarded by the Board of Trade as important and that the Board itself, particularly in the case of the horticultural industry, will take action without waiting for a complaint to be made.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) straight away that there neither was on Second Reading nor has been at any time any inconsistency between the views put forward by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself. I also assure him that in asking for speed he is knocking at an open door because, as both of us said on 22nd January, and have reiterated in the course of today's proceedings, we are fully conscious of the necessity for speed and efficacy in the procedures of the Bill. I will in a moment deal in a little more detail with the points which my hon. and gallant Friend made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) asked me two questions of interpretation which perhaps I should answer first. He asked whether, as a matter of interpretation, the words "for any period" in Clause 2 (3, c) permitted retrospection beyond the date of the Order. The answer to that as a matter of construction is no, it does not. He also asked me whether it was open to individual members or traders to make application for an Order, or whether such right was confined to trade associations. The answer to that is that individual members may make such application and that this right is in no sense restricted to trade associations.
My hon. Friend explained that his motive in moving the Amendment was partly exploratory and partly to voice certain apprehensions felt by industry about urgent cases. The remedy which his Amendment suggests is that of substituting the date of complaint or investigation for the date of the Order as the starting point for the operation of the duty. It would not necessarily be a precise or easily identifiable date which he has in mind, but it would certainly be a retrospective date.
There are two main objections to retrospection, one in principle and the other of a practical nature. I do not think that in this Committee I need elaborate on the objections in principle to retrospective taxation, for I am sure that my hon. Friends would be the first to accept that retrospection in taxation is a bad principle. The practical difficulties are these: first, the effect on general trade would be out of proportion. This is an important but, we hope, exceptional procedure. If the Committee were to adopt the Amendment and the principle of retrospection we should have this position: as soon as a complaint is made--and we have to bear in mind that these complaints may be frivolous in some cases—the importers of the whole of that range of goods are immediately put at risk of a retrospective duty undefined both in amount and time. That is a very grave objection as this might affect the whole of our general trade.
The second practical difficulty is that Customs cannot collect the duty retrospectively on consignments on which no additional payment has been made at the time of importation. In other words, the


precise method contemplated by the Amendment is not capable of practical operation. The Board, to give effect to this Amendment, would have to make a provisional Order specifying a provisional rate of duty which would have to be collected at the time of importation and which would be subject to later adjustment under Clause 3 on the conclusion of the investigation.

Mr. Remnant: Would not an alternative method be the employment of the surety bond covered by insurance?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly consider whether it would be a possible alternative to the provisional rate of duty which, I understand from that further suggestion, my hon. Friend thinks would not be a convenient method. My information is that from the Customs' point of view they would not find it easy and probably not find it practicable to operate a retrospective scheme of this sort; that is, of course, apart from the general objection to the principle of retrospection.
I ask my hon. Friend to have in mind that the recognition of the need for speed, especially in certain cases, does away with the necessity for a complicated retrospective provision of this sort. We fully accept the need for speed and the need for a proper defence against forestalling in appropriate cases. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus quoted a part of what I said in this context on Second Reading on 22nd January. I was then indicating what would be the normal procedure where we had an application for a duty in what might be called a new matter, in which the Board had to make its decision on questions about which it has to be satisfied under Clause 1.
I then said this, as reported in column 122 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
In that context, and many other contexts, speed is of the essence.
I used the same words then as my hon. and gallant Friend has used today.
One has to bear in mind that if one has an elaborate procedure to assist the Board of Trade the procedure is slower, and the slower the procedure, the greater the risk of forestalling. What we have really tried to do here is to seek the highest common factor of a reasonable maximum speed to prevent forestalling with a fair and thorough examination of the issues."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 22nd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 122.]

Captain Duncan: That is the bit I do not like.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. and gallant Friend is frank enough to say that it is that bit which he does not like. It is not an uncommon experience that litigants feel that the part of the case which is devoted to the evidence of the other side is in the nature of a waste of the time of the court. I was dealing with this procedure and with the general case, but the principle which I there enunciated is in no way incompatible with the power of the Board of Trade to make an Order at once if a strong prima facie case is made out sufficient to satisfy the Board under Clause 1; and in those cases the detailed investigation can be completed after the making of the Order.
Where the type of dumping is new, I think that the Committee will agree that the time factor must obviously take account of the necessity for a thorough examination; but, of course, some of the cases which have been referred to are not new cases in any real sense of the word. A good many types of dumping are recognisable as old acquaintances, although perhaps it would be an abuse of language in this context to call them old friends; they are recognisable as methods which we have met before.
My hon. and gallant Friend made special reference to the horticultural industry, to which I also referred on Second Reading. It was very appropriate that I should, as part of the horticultural industry is in my constituency. Where dumping is regular and seasonal, as it may be in the horticultural industry, then the Board of Trade could, for example, make an Order coming into force automatically every year at the relevant time if it appeared that dumping had been occurring at those times in those industries in previous years. In effect, therefore, the evidence of past practice would to some extent shift the onus on to the importers. The importers would not, I think, be prejudiced, because in a proper case they would then be able to go for relief under Clause 3 if they could establish that they were entitled to it.
I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate that we are fully seized of the necessity for speed and effective action; and that in the methods that I have sought


to spell out we could attain that in a way which is more compatible with our normal taxation principles than by introducing the principle of retrospection.

Mr. Remnant: May I thank my right hon. and [earned Friend for the assurance he as given, which, I am sure, will do much to dispel the apprehensions of traders? I know that we can rely on him to keep his eye on the problem so long as he is at the Board of Trade. We are content to leave the future in his hands. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30. at the end to add:
(6) The Board shall on the thirty-first day of December in each year make to the President of the Board a report on the effect of every order made under this section which has been in force during the year to which the report relates and the President shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.
From this side of the Committee we have given general support to the Bill because we believe that the President should have the powers to deal with unfair trading arising from dumping and subsidies. We also believe that he ought to use those powers speedily and effectively where required, but what we do not wish to see is this Measure becoming one of general protection.
The Amendment arises out of the fear that once a duty has been imposed it will stay long after the circumstances which justified it have changed. I am aware that Clause 3 allows an importer to claim relief, but he must do that within three months, and he is also under a penalty under a subsequent subsection. We believe that there should be some further obligation on the Board to keep under continuous review all the Orders that have been made.
The Bill makes no provision for regular review and makes only an indirect reference to cancellations and revocations. I think it was the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) who explained how difficult it might be for the Board of Trade to make the necessary examinations in the first place, and we believe that it is quite obvious that industries themselves who are enjoying

protection will not rush forward as soon as the circumstances have changed to ask for that protection to be taken off.
Therefore, we are asking that each year, as with effect from 31st December, a report shall be laid before Parliament giving the effect of every Order that has been outstanding in that year. In that way, the Board would be required to keep under continuous review all the Orders to see whether any of them could still be justified, and it would allow hon. Members an opportunity of debating those Orders and seeking perhaps to annul them if they felt that that was necessary.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have much sympathy with the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving), who moved the Amendment. We have in this Bill tried always to make the operations of the Board of Trade subject to the control of Parliament, and I certainly do not dissent from his desire that Parliament should have an appropriate report presented to it. Therefore, in principle, we are certainly willing to accept the Amendment.
I should, however, explain that it would not be possible, with the best will in the world, to accept the form of words contained in the Amendment. They would require the Board to make a report to the President of the Board who, in turn, would lay it before Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 10 of the Bill, he will see that
Anything required or authorised by or under this Act to be done by…the Board of Trade, may he done by…the President of the Board,…
and certain other named functionaries.
That being so, the effect of this Amendment would be to make the President report to himself, which clearly is not quite an appropriate proceeding. If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment—and, as I say, we accept the principle of an annual report—we will put down an appropriate Amendment on Report stage, embodying in appropriate language the principle which he wishes to achieve.

Mr. Irving: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting the substance of my Amendment, and I shall be happy to withdraw


it on those terms. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES.)

Mr. Richard Fort: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out from "Act" to the first "they" in line 34.
I put this rather small point in order to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say about the proposal slightly to widen the Clause in order that relief can be given with regard to countervailing duties as well as in respect of antidumping duties. Dumping can apply to particular consignments of goods, while the subsidies may apply to the classes or type of goods included in many consignments. I think that the effect of allowing these words to be removed from the Clause will be to allow the countervailing duties to be considered as well as the antidumping duties.
What I am saying accords with what I shall be saying later on a new Clause which I shall attempt to introduce, because I think that there may be the possibility of wrong decisions being given in the case of many consignments and correspondingly the need for a rather better appeal procedure than the Bill has in it at present. I should like to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say about including countervailing duties.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend has explained that the intention of this Amendment is to make Clause 3 give relief, where appropriate, in respect of countervailing duties, in addition to the anti-dumping duties to which the Clause is limited as at present drafted. I would say at once that I am certainly not out of sympathy with his general intention. I use the term "general intention" because I refer to the intended effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment, rather than the effect which I think it achieves. His Amendment is clearly technically defective. I do not want to make any point about that except to show in a moment that it is very difficult to get a

form of words which will give appropriate effect to the intention which he has in mind. It is for that reason, as I am sure he will appreciate, and not from any preoccupation with technical or drafting matters that I make this point at once.
The form of the Amendment does not, in fact, fit the pattern and structure of Clause 3, because that Clause has been framed so as to deal with the dumping side of the two matters with which this Bill is primarily concerned. Perhaps I may give an illustration of that. Subsection (3) of the Clause refers to the export price of the goods and the fair market price as one of the matters to be taken into account. That, as the Committee is aware, is a criterion which applies to dumping, and not to the subsidy side which my hon. Friend wishes to include in the ambit of this Clause.
The Clause has been framed on this principle of confining relief to dumping duties broadly because dumping is a matter within the power of individuals and therefore varies from case to case; and because the dumping itself varies, it is appropriate that the relief should be a matter of individual assessment, which is what Clause 3 is concerned with. A subsidy, on the other hand, is normally a known and defined practice, and for that reason it is more appropriate that relief should be given in general terms. My hon. Friend did not refer to this, but if he will be good enough to look at Clause 2 (3, d) he will see there the procedure for relief in the case of countervailing duties on subsidies to be specified in the Order, as a more general way of dealing with the more general subject of subsidies.
The criteria which are given in Clause 3 as governing the question of relief from anti-dumping duties are, of course, very apt in the case of those duties, because they are the criteria which have to be satisfied to establish a case of dumping at all; but, unfortunately, they do not fit the case of subsidies. In other words, we cannot apply those simple and sufficient rules to subsidies. We cannot, therefore, give the same effective guidance for the ascertainment of whether a claim for relief has been made out in the case of a countervailing duty on subsidies as we are able to do in this Clause in respect of relief from anti-dumping duties.
That is the basic difficulty in regard to this matter. There is, however, the further difficulty that it is not possible to test the accuracy of a claim by a foreign manufacturer that, although he has received a subsidy, it has not, in fact, affected his export price. We have no real means of checking such a claim.
In those circumstances, I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be appropriate or helpful—or, indeed, possible—to accept the Amendment which he has moved in such temperate terms; but, as I say, both my right hon. Friend and I sympathise with the desire to have some machinery for relief, in proper cases, from these countervailing duties in respect of subsidies. That being so, I would certainly give the matter further consideration between now and the Report stage. In saying that, however, I should make it clear that I think that, perhaps, the ball is now in the court of my hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens), in whose name this Amendment stands.
7.45 p.m.
I have outlined the difficulties which we see in getting any criteria to fit this particular case in order to put it into the Statute. If my hon. Friends can be of help in that respect, and can suggest any appropriate criteria, then, as I say, we are by no means hostile to the principle and will be glad to incorporate a suitable form of words for a suggested Amendment when we reach the Report stage of this Bill.

Mr. Fort: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his expectedly lucid exposition of this rather complicated point. Perhaps he and I and our hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) could get together, as he suggests, to see what we can work out.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Mr. Walker-Smith indicated assent.

Mr. Fort: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out "three" and to insert "six".
As time is running a little short, I will say what I have to say in a couple of

sentences. In moving a previous Amendment I conceded that some of the information coming to the Board of Trade must come from the importers claiming relief under Clause 3. To us, three months seems very inflexible, and we therefore suggest that the period should be extended to six months.

Sir D. Eccles: I can accept this Amendment, as I think it will improve the Bill. We have been told by importers' representatives that they think that the three months is rather too short. Therefore, we are very ready to see it made six months.

Mr. Irving: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(POWER TO REQUIRE INFORMA-TION FROM IMPORTERS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Fort: The one general point I want to make on this Clause is really to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on an earlier Clause—the need for speed if effective action is to be taken against dumping. As I read it, Clause 5 (2) does not give to the Board of Trade the power to collect the price information which is necessary for speedy action. I know that it is argued that if there is introduced into this Measure arrangements such as those contained in the United States, Canadian and other antidumping Acts, there is great danger of retaliation. In consequence, as I understand. reliance is placed on the trades which are complaining about dumping to provide the information needed to determine the domestic prices, a point which my right hon. Friend indicated earlier this afternoon.
In one of the industries which is extremely important in my constituency, the weaving of man-made fibres of all sorts, it is felt that the powers contained in Clause 5 (2) are really inadequate for proving dumping, even to establish a prima facie case. What I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider, when we come to the Report stage, is the putting


down of an Amendment which would give him permissive powers to demand price declarations where a prima facie case has been shown to his satisfaction, as proved by the issuing of an Order. The Minister may have some more practical administrative advice for collecting information about prices, which undoubtedly he ought to have if there is to be effective and speedy implementation of this Measure.

Mr. Rhodes: I wish to supplement what has been said by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). In previous Clauses we have discussed provisions about dumping and subsidies and we have now reached the point where we can make the Bill effective if we put some teeth into it. As the Bill stands it will be far too difficult for an aggrieved trade or firm to prove that dumping is taking place, so we shall need something more than we have in the Bill.
The powers which the Treasury will have under this Measure do not go far enough and I would like to see them augmented during the Report stage. Without the ability to examine books, I do not think that the Bill will be very effective. Where there is such legislation in any other country I know of, such provision is made. For instance, there are officials in London connected with the United States, Canadian, South African and several other embassies, to whom exporters from this country take their books and prove that dumping is not taking place by a comparison between the prices charged for goods to be sent abroad and goods for circulation in the home market.
I will not detain the Committee any longer, but will merely stake a claim at this juncture for putting down an Amendment on Report.

Mr. Alan Green: I wish briefly to reinforce the plea made for a more explicit power for the Board of Trade to determine the facts speedily as to whether dumping has taken place or not. I am sure that unless these powers are put into the Bill later, the Board of Trade will have more trouble with home manufacturers chasing hares that are very difficult to catch than will be the case if those powers are not given to it for the general reasons which will be given to us —and good reasons they are—why those

powers should not be given to it at this stage.
I appreciate that it is difficult to change the layout of the invoices which the Customs and Excise have to scan at present. However, it will be much more difficult to withstand the pleas of home manufacturers who, under this Bill, have no particular point on which they can pin down their dumper. The Board of Trade itself will find the same difficulty unless it is given specific powers to ensure that the exporter from a foreign country must declare at call, if not before call, his current home market price.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider, therefore, whether on Report he cannot merely make this deterrent, but make it appear to be a deterrent on the lines that good government should act, because good government should appear to be good as well as being good. Then this Bill will achieve its purpose.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friends the Members for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and Preston, South (Mr. Green) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) together present a formidable accumulation of experience and knowledge on the difficult subject on which we are engaged tonight. I need not tell them or the Committee that my right hon. Friend and I will weigh carefully all the suggestions which they have been good enough to make.
The problem here is how far we can get the maximum amount of information which will be at once reliable and capable of being obtained sufficiently quickly to operate this Measure in the speedy and efficacious manner which, as my right hon. Friend and I have reiterated again today—having said so originally on the Second Reading of this Bill —we also believe to be vital for its success.
There are, however, certain difficulties in adopting the methods put forward in the course of the discussion on this Clause. The basic difficulty about incorporating into these Customs requirements a declaration by the importers of the information supplied by the exporters is that it would be a bare declaration which there would be no method of checking. It would, in effect, be a hearsay statement on the part of the importer of what


he has been told by the exporter. Unfortunately, we have no corps of inspectors who would be able to check such declarations in the overseas countries from which the information comes, and where it will have to be checked if checked it is to be. The alternative to that is to accept every declaration at its face value, which would probably not be a reliable method of operating this system.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the practice of some countries in getting the information through their representatives in those overseas countries. I know that he will appreciate, with his experience of these matters, that the countries which do that are the countries which operate their ordinary tariff machinery on that basis; that is to say, the countries which require a statement of current domestic value in the other country in connection with their anti-dumping legislation are those relatively few countries whose tariff valuation law depends on that criterion.
Our tariff valuation in this country does not depend on the criterion of current domestic value in the other country, but on the price which goods would fetch on sale in the open market at the time of importation. In other words, our criterion requires a valuation in these shores and not in the country from which the article is imported.

Mr. Rhodes: That may be so, but the answer we would get would be the one we want. If we were able to examine the books in another country and could see what were the comparable prices of the same material going into the home trade, we would get the information we want. It does not really matter whether it is the same tariff structure as the U.S.A. or not. So I suggest that the Minister might consider that point between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Walker-Smith: We will certainly consider it, but the point I was seeking to make was the following. We would have to establish special machinery for dealing with this one thing within the relatively narrow, though important, context of this anti-dumping legislation.
8.0 p.m.
The countries which do that checking are countries which, in any event, have the machinery and personnel stationed

abroad in the ordinary course of their valuation for their own tariff machinery. That is the difference between our position and theirs, and that is why it would be a much bigger administrative exercise on the part of this country to try to adopt a similar procedure. It would be wrong of me to minimise the difficulties which would face us in trying to set up any such machinery in this country.
As my right hon. Friend has said, we have not had very long since Second Reading to consider these matters in detail, and we will certainly consider what has been said, but it would be wrong of me to hold out unduly high hopes having regard to these difficulties and to the difference between our position and that of the other countries to which reference has been made.

Mr. Fort: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend has exaggerated the administrative difficulties. I should have thought that all that would be needed was a very occasional check in some outrageous case, which could well be undertaken by the ordinary commercial staffs in our embassies abroad, who are, to my certain knowledge, constantly informing themselves about domestic prices.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not seek to exaggerate the administrative difficulties. What I was saying was that our position is necessarily different from that of other countries which have, in any event, the personnel to do the checking because they are checking for tariff purposes. I will certainly give consideration to what would be involved, but I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend or to raise his expectations higher than the circumstances warrant.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF EXPORT PRICE.)

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, after "other", to insert:
,and the Board of Trade are satisfied as to that fact, as to the price on that sale and as to such other facts as are material for this purpose".
This Amendment is in line with the debates that we have just been having. It is designed to give us, in this case in respect of the export price of goods, a


little more elbow room in whether or not the goods have been dumped.
There may be cases where there has been a sale on the open market between a buyer and a seller as described in the subsection which we seek to amend, but it may be very difficult to get the facts. Rather than take much wider powers of the kind that some hon. Members were a moment or two ago asking us to take, and compel importers to give a great deal of information which might or might not be checkable in the country concerned, we believe it to be better to add to the subsection the words on the Notice Paper so that we can use the powers in subsection (3) when we are satisfied that the various facts in subsection (2) have not been established.
This is a small Amendment, but it will make it a little easier for the Board of Trade to get at the export price.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF FAIR MARKET PRICE.)

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, after "question," to insert:
(that is to say, any identical or comparable goods).
The Clause refers to methods by which we can ascertain the fair market price. We think it is possible that someone in the country of origin might vary just a little the construction of an article or alter it a little in some way so that it could be exported and it would be difficult for us to establish a comparable sale. If the Committee will agree to the insertion of these words, we need not look for an article which is 100 per cent. the same as the one which has been exported to this country. A very small variation will still allow us to determine the fair market price.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Clause 7, page 6, line 12, leave out "the like" and insert "that."—[Sir D. Eccles.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, ETC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Ian Horobin: The Clause relates to an important matter. On a previous Clause we dealt, in effect, with certificates of origin where, in a general sense, there is some suggestion of fraud or incorrectness. Here we are dealing with problems arising from certificates of origin where there is no question of their concealment or anything of that sort, but where, in some cases, very great damage is done to the home trade by what is, in effect, a legal evasion. I have not tabled an Amendment, because this is a highly difficult subject. It would be almost impossible for anyone but the Department to draft an Amendment if one were required. If one were needed, it would have to be brought forward by the Government on Report, or in another place.
There are a number of places, in particular Japan, from where, for reasons which we need not go into, it is illegal under other provisions to import certain articles, including light engineering articles, some of which are represented in my constituency, such as sewing machines. We need not argue whether those provisions are right or wrong—personally, I am an unrepentant believer in keeping trade as free as possible—but I believe that everybody will agree that if, for reasons good or bad, the importation of certain articles into this country from another specified country has been declared to be illegal and stopped, people should not be allowed to import them by a mere evasion, legal though it may be, of the certificate of origin provision.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and I both have knowledge of the sort of thing that happens. We find advertisements appearing, quite openly, in the Press—I have submitted certain of them to the Department —saying, for instance, that Japanese sewing machines are being imported provided with a certificate of origin in, for instance, Holland. That sounds almost incredible, but it happens. This sort of thing is being done on a large scale from Northern Ireland. The persons concerned are perfectly open about it. There is no


question of concealment, and Clause 5 would not come into it.
These people are able to take advantage of the 25 per cent. provision. It is normally done by simply putting an attachment on the article. These people obtain, for instance, a sewing machine, which—I will not go into the reasons—it is forbidden to import into this country from Japan, and they attach to it a small motor. This motor can be detached quite easily if one does not want it, or if one prefers to replace it by a British motor. However, it enables advantage to be taken of the 25 per cent. provision. The article is then stated to have a certificate of origin from Holland or Northern Ireland. If we are to get into a free European market, as I hope we shall, the possibilities become obvious to every hon. Member.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade to look very seriously into this matter. It is comparable to some of those legal evasions of taxation of which we all know. It will become known on a large scale, because it is money for jam, but it puts the merchant and the producer who are playing the game at an impossible disadvantage in competition which Parliament, for one reason or another, has decided should not be tolerated. I do not need to occupy the time of the Committee with giving many examples of this, as I could, but it is a very serious problem which the Board of Trade should consider before the Bill is passed, to make sure that a certificate of origin is a certificate of origin and not a certificate of non-origin.

Mr. Rhodes: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) has said. This is an important matter, but I will content myself with asking one or two questions. If the Bill cannot be amended at a subsequent stage to give us what we want, could the result be achieved by an Order in Council on the separate occasions when it is needed? Trouble will arise on this issue if we neglect to do something about it during the passage of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East mentioned some of the things that could happen. There could be confusion with Hong Kong prints processed in this country and then exported into the European free trade area, thus sabotaging

everything we want to see in this new movement towards a common market. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to see what can be done about this before the Bill is passed. If it cannot be done by an Amendment, will he consider whether it cannot be done separately, as occasion demands, by an Order in Council?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) observed, this is a complicated matter. He has been good enough to send us details about the sewing machines question which we are now studying. He has raised the problem mainly in the context of Imperial Preference, which is also concerned with the certificate of origin and this 25 per cent. rule. It is an intricate point and does not really fall within the ambit of the Bill; but I will certainly be happy to discuss it with him in more detail in the context in which he has raised it and in general.
8.15 p.m.
What will emerge in the context of the European free trade area is still a matter of speculation, but it is right that we should have in mind all the considerations of our own national and industrial interests in any negotiations into which we enter. In this Bill we are concerned with the somewhat narrower context of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy. The definition of origin in Clause 8, with which the Committee is now concerned, is required for the specific purposes of enabling both the Board of Trade and the Customs and Excise appropriately to carry out the statutory duties laid upon them in ascertaining the country of origin for the purposes of making and operating the Orders to which the Bill refers.

Mr. Rhodes: That will not do. We are defining what we want by inserting the 25 per cent. rule. We now have some choice in the matter, whereas if we leave it we will not be able to please ourselves. I should like more flexibility and responsibility given to the Board of Trade to decide appropriate percentages to apply to different commodities coming from different parts of the world. If we do not do this now, we will find the mistake later. We will freely agree to a certain amount of flexibility if the President of


the Board of Trade will promise that the percentage will be assessed in each case on the merits of the case.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate what the hon. Member had to say on this subject in the Second Reading debate. As far as we can see, it is most appropriate to take a percentage basis. For that we have a twofold precedent, as the hon. Member will appreciate, both in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, and in the Imperial Preference formula which we have been discussing in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East had to say.
It is necessary to find a method which will enable us to catch goods which are dumped substantially in the state in which they originated, in spite of certain processes, but not to make the percentage such as to invite retaliation by other countries and injure our exports. What we do now may have some influence on other international arrangements in both the European free trade area and elsewhere. The hon. Member must have in mind in this, as in all other contexts, that we are a great exporting nation and we do not want to take action which will prejudice our legitimate export interests. Of course, we can return to this subject on Report.

Mr. Rhodes: We have had the percentage basis before in precisely the form mentioned by the Minister, in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. It never worked, was absolutely valueless and was later abolished. We should not rely on a precedent which was so valueless.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period for which the Secretary of State may make contributions under schemes agreed under section one of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the moneys so payable under the said Act of 1922.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS MAY BE MADE.)

8.20 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert:
Provided that in the case of each scheme in territories other than Canada, Australia and New Zealand the consent of elected representatives of the indigenous peoples in the territories concerned has been secured.
The Amendment embodies certain suggestions made in speeches during the Second Reading debate. It recognises the value of the Bill so far as it serves the interest of settlers in the white Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but it would add to the Clause a proviso that in other territories the consent of the elected representaives of the indigenous people should be secured.
Those of us who are associated with the Amendment wish to be sure that the British immigrants who will be assisted under the Bill will be welcomed by the majority of the populations in the territories to which they go. There is no doubt of their welcome in Canada, Australia and New Zealand; those countries have dominantly white populations, and their Governments are eager that British immigrants should go there. But there is grave doubt whether a majority of the populations in certain Colonies would welcome settlers from this country. That is particularly true of territories in East and Central Africa.
As all those who are familiar with conditions in those territories know, the African populations of Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland and the Rhodesias are very concerned about increasing British settlement, and will remain so unless there are limitations upon the conditions in which that immigration takes place. Undoubtedly the desirable solution of the problem would be that consent should be secured from the Governments of those territories for the assistance of immigration from this country.
The Labour Party takes the view that in these territories there should be democratic Legislatures and Governments. During the past year it has adopted a policy statement urging that in Colonial Territories, which are often described as multi-racial, the vote should be given to a human being irrespective of colour and race, and that as an immediate step towards that end there should be parity of franchise and of representation between the races. That would be the ideal solution, but that is not the position in many of these Colonial Territories at the moment. It would be true to say that in the West Indies, Malaya and West Africa the majority of the indigenous populations control the Legislatures, but that is emphatically not true in the case of the East and Central African Colonies.
Let me indicate the degree to which the majority African populations of those Colonies now have representation in the Legislatures. According to the latest figures, of a total population of 6,048,200 in Kenya, 5.815,000 are Africans, and yet there are only three Africans in the Council of Ministers numbering 18. At this moment, also, there are only six—shortly to be increased to eight—in the Legislative Council of 56 members. In those circumstances the sponsors of the Amendment have not felt able to take what would be the ordinary course of asking that the Legislatures should give their consent. We have felt it desirable to ask that the elected representatives of the indigenous peoples should do so.
Nyasaland is another example. There, the total population is about 2,575,000, of whom the Africans number about 2,560,000. There are 15,700 non-Africans in that territory. Yet in the Legislative Council numbering 23 members there are only five African representatives, once again indicating that it would not be

enough to secure the consent of the Legislature. If one is to have the view of the majority of the population one should have the consent of the African representatives.
Another instance is afforded by Northern Rhodesia. The total population there is 2,156,600. Of those, 2,085,000 are Africans. Yet there are only four Africans in the Legislative Council of 27 members. In the Federal Assembly for the whole of Nyasaland and the Rhodesias, although there are 6 million Africans and 200,000 Europeans, there are only six African representatives out of a membership of 35.
It is for those reasons that we take the view that if British settlers in those countries are to be encouraged and helped by the Bill it should be with the consent of the majority of the indigenous populations. This is especially important because, as everyone who is familiar with these territories knows, there is a danger that the controversy which is now raging about this issue of the immigration of a settler population will turn to conflict.
8.30 p.m.
There is no subject which causes more intense feeling in East and Central Africa and holds greater potentiality for racial animosity than the encouragement of white settlers to those territories. Broadly speaking, the small European minority open their arms to an increased British and European settler community while the majority African populations oppose, and have great fears. The problem is complicated because in those territories there are also Asian communities, and while the European representatives are eager that more Europeans should enter those territories, those same Europeans frown on any encouragement of Asian immigration.
In Uganda there is a limitation on land ownership by European and British settlers, but even in that Colony at the moment there is great fear of European and British settlement. They have been told that Uganda shall become primarily an African State. They fear immigration, and we do not, under this Bill, want British immigration to take place to a Colony where the settlers will find that there is opposition and antagonism to their arrival. In Kenya this problem is still more intense. The Mau Mau has been defeated and from the first I have


been one of those who hoped that it would be. But the land problem remains, and among the African population there is an intense opposition to British and European immigration which will have land settlement rights.
Mau Mau has been defeated on the physical plane, but unless there is a policy adopted which will win the approval of the great majority African population the intensities which have been expressed in Mau Mau may take a different form. I am one who greatly desires that in these circumstances a basis of agreement with the African population shall be provided.
Even in Tanganyika Africans are asking that it shall be regarded primarily as an African State, as is Uganda. In Nyasaland the Secretary of State for the Colonies is finding that the African population desires a breakaway from the Federation because of their opposition to European domination. There is not the least doubt about the attitude of the African population there towards increased European settlement. Even in Northern Rhodesia the Secretary of State has found the same point of view being expressed by representatives of the African Congress.
It would be unwise for this House to pass a Bill which would encourage any settlement of Europeans and British citizens to which the representatives of the vast majority of the African populations would be opposed. They would not oppose the coming of technicians, teachers or doctors; they would not oppose the coming of British immigrants who came in a spirit of racial equality, without racial superiority, and in a spirit of service. There is a wonderful experiment now proceeding in Southern Rhodesia under the supervision of my friend, Mr. Clutton Brock, at St. Faiths; where there is a community of racial equality, and experiments in education and agricultural development and even the beginning of light industry. Those who go to these territories in that spirit will receive a welcome from the African population.
I do not want to see racial exclusiveness, but in Kenya and the Rhodesias Europeans and Asians who seek certain political and economic privileges and dominations will arouse racial antagonism. I appreciate that in those territories there

are British settlers who have lived there for two or three generations, and who regard these countries as their homes. I would only say, so far as they are concerned, that it is of the utmost necessity that they should reach an agreement with the African populations and their representatives on these problems.
We look forward to inter-racial cooperation, but inter-racial co-operation will be poisoned if there is assistance to the settlement of European and British citizens who will have privileges of land, privileges in economic circumstances, and privileges in political power. It is to prevent that happening that I am moving this Amendment.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has made this point, because what he said, if it is reported, will still further increase the growing feeling between African and European in the East and Central African territories.
This Bill does nothing more than allow what has been going on for a great many years, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what would be the position of the Africans today if there had been no migration of Europeans to that part of the world during the last sixty years. During that time, the Africans have progressed from a very primitive state, in which they had been living for thousands of years, to a state which is now evolving in which the two nations are living together in peace and amity, provided that we do not stir up trouble from this side of the world. The development and evolution that has gone on there in the last sixty years is unbelievable, and to raise the point that the European has not done a great deal of service to the Africans is not being realistic.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the indigenous populations, but who are the indigenous populations? All the African natives who are there today have gradually migrated from the North. The indigenous people have been pushed out by various tribes which have migrated downwards from the North, and it is not right to say that the present black populations of East and Central Africa are the indigenous populations; they are not.
I want to call attention to the fact that if anybody wants to know what has


been going on in these countries, helped by the Europeans, he should go there with an open mind and see what has been done by Europeans. Let him have a look at some of the hospitals, which are comparable with the very best that we have in this country. Let him realise that the first African barrister has lately been called to the Bar in Rhodesia. Surely this is a great advance. An African would never have been called to the Bar without the assistance of the white population. These are the sort of things that are now going on in Africa. The African is being assisted in the cultivation of his land. Those who have been out there to see the great strides made by Africans in the cultivation of their land, with the assistance of Europeans, will realise that a tremendous amount of good has been done.
Further, it is suggested that the people of the Rhodesias want to take into their country a wholesale influx of immigrants. That is not so. They are selective, and they want to be selective. They want immigrants who possess the know-how, not the ordinary labouring people— people who will go there and assist the natives to develop and to acquire technical knowledge.
Broadly speaking, in both the Rhodesias, there is tremendous mineral wealth which should be processed, as far as possible, on the spot. If that is done, it will enable the African to raise his standard of living by the wealth that ensues. If it is not done, and we do not go to the help of the Africans, that mineral wealth will be exported in its primary state for the benefit of the rest of the world. I do not want to see that. I want to see primary industries started in the Rhodesias, where there is an immense labour force. That labour force will then be able to improve its standard of living even more than it is doing at the moment.
If anybody does not believe that, I suggest that they should go to the Copperbelt and examine the houses which the mine owners have erected for the benefit of Africans. An immense amount of building has gone on there. Hospitals have been built. Whereas, at one time, the African hesitated to go to hospital because he thought that he was going to a mausoleum, he now forms a queue

waiting for admission. He gets a tremendous amount of service from them.
It is wrong that it should go out from this Committee that there is criticism which has not been countered by some of us on this side. I want to see migration to that part of the world—the migration of technicians and people with knowledge of how to work industry. The African is the first to benefit from that kind of migration. I hope that it will not go out to the Rhodesias that we are against them in their desire to get good settlers into those countries, because that is not so.

Mr. John Dugdale: I should not have intervened except for the last remarks of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). The hon. Gentleman said that it was a good thing for the African that settlers should go out to Africa. All of us will agree that the best type of settler can do a lot of good, but we must realise that there are varying types of settler. Some are not at all desirable.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) says is that if the Africans desire it then these people should go there. If all these things are as suggested by the hon. Member for Leominster, why should the Africans not desire it? There must be something which stops the Africans from desiring to have immigrants. I suggest that it is because some of the immigrants are not as desirable as the hon. Member for Leominster would suppose.
We must look at this matter most carefully. We are not against all emigration but we think that, especially in the Rhodesias, there are people there, such as Lord Malvern himself, who are anxious to see that the white population is increased so that they may continue the campaign which they have started, saying, "We are a free people. We are like America. We are white people here. We think that if you do anything to stop us getting our freedom to rule the country as we think fit you are doing something such as was done against the American people in the eighteenth century". That was the line taken by Lord Malvern, and it is a very dangerous line indeed.
The noble Lord said that if there was any attempt by the British people to impose their will upon them, that small group


of white people would fight back—and fight back with arms. That was a very dangerous thing to have said. We do not want immigrants of that kind there. We want the good type, and we should encourage them, and we must be very careful to see that we get them.

Mr. James Johnson: Lord Malvern has perhaps made some silly speeches. I know him personally and I must say that he has made some better ones, too.
This would be a foolish and mischievous debate if it developed into a slanging match as to whether black men are good and white men are bad or vice versa. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) invited us to go out and see for ourselves. Some of us have been in Africa more than once with, I hope, minds as honest as those of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We hope to go again in the future to see how things are getting on. We shall go with minds at least as fair and honest as those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and with an endeavour to work for the future of that plural society.
This would be a sterile debate if it developed into an ethnological dispute as to who are the indigenous peoples. One could argue about whether the Masai pushed out the Kikuyu in Kenya; or whether the Zulu pushed out the Matabele or Mashona in Rhodesia; or whether Jan Van Riebeck went to the Cape in the seventeenth century; but this gets us nowhere. We want the best type of immigrants working together for the better future of that plural society. It is a most difficult situation, and tension is high. It would help us little to argue the merits or demerits of whatever people live in the area. I stand by all I said about the land question and white settlement in the Second Reading debate; and I agree with 99 per cent. of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) a few minutes ago.
8.45 p.m.
I would ask the Minister a couple of questions about the Bill and the purpose for which the money is being spent. As I said last week, I happen to be on the Overseas Migration Board. I hope that the Minister will confirm that none of the moneys voted has been spent for the

specific purpose of settling white farmers on the lands of East and Central Africa. I want to be quite firm about this, because it is fearfully important that the right answer should go out. In the past, this has not happened. We have spent some of the money to send out scores of fine young boys to homes in Southern Rhodesia. Perhaps the Minister will confirm what I say. I am the last person to wish to spend money on subsidising a Yorkshire or a Devon farmer to go out there, but we hope that many technicians, doctors, veterinary surgeons, entomologists and teachers will go out to help the Africans in fitting themselves for the difficult task of governing themselves in the future.
I want the Minister to be quite specific and to say what the money has been used for. Not much of it has been spent; a few tens of thousands of pounds. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that, as it has not been spent in the past, so it is not the intention of the Government to use the money in the future to help to settle white farmers in the territories of East and Central Africa.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Not for the first time has my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) directed our attention to disquieting features in central and other parts of Africa. I appreciate the motives which have inspired him to put this Amendment forward. It raises questions of democracy in those territories but, after all, this is not a debate on that precise subject. My hon. Friend has very ingeniously injected that subject into the debate, and I am not blaming him for it.
I would remind my hon. Friends and the Committee generally of what was said during the Second Reading debate. If anything of value then emerged it was the opinion expressed in all quarters of the House that in Commonwealth migration and settlement there should be complete co-ordination. By that we mean that the Governments concerned, excluding none of them, not even in the African territories, should help to create adequate machinery of a co-ordinating character for determining, first, the statistics to be made available to the Governments concerned to enable them to form a rational judgment on the situation, on the finance required, and on all


the paraphernalia associated with migration.
That was the view expressed on the occasion of the Second Reading debate. We hope that that view will receive practical application in due course. I note, by the way, that some of my hon. Friends have put a Motion on the Order Paper in which they ask for the creation of co-ordinating machinery, following what was said in the course of the Second Reading debate. No doubt we shall have a further debate on that subject—I hope very soon, because it is a vital matter concerning the whole of the Commonwealth. In view of that, it seems to me that it would be wrong at this stage to inject an Amendment, even if the Government accepted it, which might create the impression that concerning certain parts of the Commonwealth territories we want to contract out of the co-ordinating machinery which we regard as essential in the circumstances.
I wish to put another point. Whilst appreciating all that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said, I think there is a great deal that has to be said about the conditions in the African territories and the somewhat half-baked democracy that exists there. All these matters have to be corrected and no doubt will be corrected in due course—the sooner the better—but it seems to me that if we are to inject into the Empire Settlement Bill—the Act as it will become—a provision that no person can go from this country to any of the African territories without the consent of the elected representatives in those territories, there must be complete reciprocity.
That, of course, implies that no person in any of those African territories should be permitted to come to the United Kingdom without the consent of the elected representatives in this country. That would hardly do. I do not suppose that my hon. Friend cares to suggest that. In the absence of that reciprocity it would be somewhat unfair. After all, a principle—if it is acceptable, if it is desirable, if it is just, if it is honest—should apply all round, but this Amendment would apply only to one section and not to the other.
Moreover, how is it to be applied? Are the elected representatives in any of the African territories to sit in solemn conclave and consider the application by some person from the United Kingdom

who wishes to settle in any of those African territories? That is very complicated machinery and would scarcely be suitable in the circumstances.
It seems to me that we must rest our case on the principle which was at any rate mentioned in the Second Reading debate, and which I hope before long will be fully established, namely, the creation of the co-ordinating machinery which is required. If that is done my hon. Friend will have gained a great deal, but, much as I should like to support my hon. Friend—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) in 99 per cent. of what he said but somehow boggle at the other 1 per cent.—I beg him not to press this Amendment to a Division, because it might prove somewhat embarrassing to those of us who want to be almost excessively loyal to our Colonies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I can assure him that any proposals for improving the machinery of consultation in the Commonwealth are matters which are regarded by my right hon. Friend and by the Government as of the greatest importance. I hope that on another occasion we shall have the opportunity of debating the ideas which may be put forward by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are interested in that subject.
I turn to the terms of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has moved. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was, I think, very wise when he warned his hon. Friend of the dangers in which we might find ourselves in trying to define the indigenous population of any particular part of Africa and, not least, of the Rhodesias. Arguments about the Matabele might lead us into great ethnological and historical complexity.

Mr. J. Johnson: I was warning the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), not my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).

Mr. Brockway: I was using the word "indigenous" exactly as it was used by a


great Conservative Secretary of State for the Colonies, in 1923. I refer to the Devonshire Declaration, which declared that the interests of the indigenous population should be paramount and meant by "indigenous" exactly what is meant in the Amendment.

Mr. Alport: Even so, there would be considerable argument about the interpretation of that phrase.
I will, if I may, answer some questions which have been raised about the practical implications of the Amendment and the argument put forward by the hon. Member. If I may say so, I know from some experience what is in his mind. He will not expect me to accept the premises upon which many of his arguments are founded, nor will he, I hope, expect me to comment on the constitutional matters which he raised and which are more properly in the sphere of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but, in passing, I should say that I do not think that Her Majesty's present Government can be accused of being slow in grasping opportunities for constitutional progress in Africa.
The example of the Lyttelton Constitution, an experiment, as indeed it was, is an example of the good will and progressive thought which has animated my right hon. Friend and his predecessor throughout their period of office, and the example of the progress which is being made in Ghana and which will be carried still further in a very significant way within a matter of weeks is further evidence of our attitude to this problem.
The real objective behind the Amendment, as I see it, is to deal with the application of the Bill to the Central African Federation. I think the hon. Member will realise that were there any intention of extending its provisions to Colonial Territories in the strict sense of the word, that would be very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies with a view to ensuring that the proper interests of all sections of the community, and, naturally, of what he would term the indigenous section of the community, were safeguarded.
If I may, I will narrow it down to the point which was raised on Second Reading and which, I think, is one of the main

problems which the hon. Member has in mind. The hon. Member for Rugby asked me how much money had been spent during the last few years, from the moneys voted under the previous Acts, for emigration to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The moneys spent are very small. The purpose is very limited. In 1949, which is the year in which most money was spent, the figure was £9,835, and the number of children who went to the Federation, or what was in those days Southern Rhodesia, was only 22. They went to the Rhodesia Fairbridge Memorial College to be looked after, educated and brought up in that territory. The figures subsequently have varied, but have never been more than in 1951—£5,250. In 1956, they were £2,694. The number of migrants and the amount of money involved are, therefore, very small.
9.0 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for an assurance about future intentions. We have not yet been asked by the Government of the Federation for any assistance under the existing Act or, anticipating the passing of this Bill, under the Act which is to succeed it. But I think that the Committee would generally agree that we are anxious to see useful migrants of British origin go to the Federation to assist in the development of that part of Africa.
Supposing that the Amendment were accepted by the Committee, it would not, of course, prevent European migration to the Federation. What it would do, in fact, is to put an obstacle, perhaps a small obstacle but an obstacle nevertheless, in the way of the movement of European population from this country to the Federation, with the result that any lack of balance that there might be in respect of migration from the Union into the Federation would be further enhanced. I will not argue whether that is a good or a bad thing, but I would guess, from my knowledge of the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, that that is not the sort of purpose he had in mind.
Indeed, I think that it is right that the Committee should always remember the fears that exist—and I accept that they do exist—in the African mind about certain aspects of land settlement, but I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members


opposite were absolutely right in pointing out that settlement is not merely a question of land settlement at present, but also involves the migration into the countries concerned of a large number of extremely useful people with technical and professional skills and attributes which are essential to the development of Africa and the raising of the standard of living of peoples of all races. I believe that this question of land policy is one which must be settled on the spot. We should be mistaken in introducing that matter into our consideration of emigration policy under this Bill.
I would point out one further fact, that a great many people who may go out to the Rhodesias or other parts of Africa as doctors, veterinary surgeons, agricultural officers, or whoever they may be, might eventually, and quite reasonably, feel when the time came that they would like to have a stake in the country and do something to become the form of settlers to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the settlers in land. Therefore, the Amendment would not achieve the purpose that he has in mind. In fact, I would suggest to him that it would do the opposite, damage some of the interests he has in mind, and I hope that in these circumstances he will not feel it necessary to press for the acceptance of the Amendment.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I think that the Under-Secretary of State has indicated that he is not out of sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). He said that we have disagreements about how we interpret the word "indigenous", but in the case of the Rhodesias he gave an assurance that the wishes of the indigenous peoples would be taken fully into account. My hon. Friend is rather wary of this kind of assurance because past experience has shown that, however good the intentions of the Minister, there have been other influences at work which have stopped the implementation of the wish.
The hon. Gentleman made reference to Kenya and the multi-racial society that we hope to create, and how this Government should bring about a multi-racial group of Ministers to work together. He will be aware that the intention was to go further, and the fact that we have not

been able to push on with the development of multi-racial Government has resulted in white settlers becoming more reactionary.
I venture to suggest that the prospect of making a success of multi-racial Government is more dismal today than at the time since we started talking about this development. I pay tribute to the statesmanlike way in which the Minister concerned tried to bring it about; but we have to push more energetically and bring pressure on the settlers in the territories to recognise that their own rights are best sustained by recognising that ultimately all these countries, by democratic elections, will be ruled by the majority, and the majority will not be those who come from Europe or elsewhere.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not press the Amendment. There are various methods by which in these days we have to decide who is to take part in an election—either on an educational or a property basis—and if a number of the indigenous people are not consulted democracy is not given full play. While my hon. Friend deserves credit for raising this matter for discussion, I suggest that he should now withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I prefer to withdraw the Amendment, though not for the reasons stated by my right hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). As I am satisfied on this occasion to have expressed my views, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Lawson: I and other of my hon. Friends had hoped, Sir Gordon, that you would have called the Amendment in page 1, line 13, at the end insert:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall take such steps as will ensure that he is adequately informed on the numbers, ages and skills of the intending emigrants and operates the scheme in such manner as will safeguard any one part of the United Kingdom from losing a disproportionately large part of its people.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It is not selected.

Mr. Lawson: The ruling from the Chair must be accepted, but had that Amendment been called we had hoped to stress the importance of taking the steps therein suggested. I am sure that the Committee will agree that the Amendment contains a most reasonable request. It might be argued that such was already the duty of the Minister concerned. If that is so, then I would certainly put it to the Committee that that duty is not being, and cannot be, fulfilled as the scheme would seem to be operated now.
I had not the advantage of hearing the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations speaking in the Second Reading debate, but I have read his speech very carefully. There he says—and it seemed to me that this was the kernel of the Government's policy:
… the Commonwealth Governments are well aware that we cannot allow them to make too extensive inroads upon the labour forces of any particular industry or of any particular area of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January. 1957; Vol. 563, c. 545–61
What we feel is that the hon. Gentleman has certainly not provided himself with the means of enabling him to act in this way. If we are to be sure that we are avoiding
… too extensive inroads upon the labour forces of any particular industry or of any particular area of this country
the Government must be adequately informed of what is happening in this process of emigration and immigration.
As I see it, the Government are certainly not informed as to what is happening in those matters. In its reference to the matter yesterday, the Manchester Guardian said:
In the discussion about the skilled men the country is losing, there is an almost complete lack of statistics. Nobody knows exactly who is leaving. Even the Prime Minister, when he was asked how many scientists had emigrated, could only reply that there were no figures to show"—

The Deputy-Chairman: What the hon. Gentleman is now discussing is very far removed from the Clause.

Mr. Lawson: I understood, Sir Gordon, that Clause 1 was, in fact, the Bill. I understand that the Bill concerns the powers of the Government to stimulate, among other things, emigration from this country to the Commonwealth. I understand, too, from what the Under-Secretary

has said, that we have a certain policy in this matter, and I am trying to argue that this policy cannot be carried out without the required information.

The Deputy-Chairman: During the Committee stage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is in the Clause.

Mr. Lawson: But Clause 1 covers the Bill, Sir Gordon, and that is what I am speaking about. It refers to the previous Acts and, presumably, in doing so it embraces all that those previous Acts contained, and they contained this matter.
I was trying to put the point—and I will endeavour to keep it as narrow as I can—that unless we have the information as to what, in fact, is happening, we cannot carry out this purpose. If, of course, the Under-Secretary tells me that this purpose of ensuring that there are not too serious inroads into the labour force of any of our industries or into the population of any part of the country, and if he says that it is not the concern of the Government, then, presumably, I should be out of order. However, in view of what the Under-Secretary said, I am putting the point that we must surely have this information.
In the course of the Second Reading debate the Under-Secretary said:
I must confess to the House that the figures which I have used are the best I can obtain in the circumstances, but one of the great difficulties about any study or discussion of migration problems is that accurate statistics are not easy to obtain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 547.]
It would seem that we not only lack statistics about the movement of people with particular skills from the country, but that we appear to lack statistics about many things in this matter. For example, we appear not to know the actual number of emigrants from the country. I am talking of gross figures. We find it exceedingly difficult—if we have the figure I have yet to learn it—to get to know the number of people who return to this country. We seem to be in great doubt as to the ages of the people. We must surely be in doubt about ages if we are not sure about the number of people who leave or come back to the country. We certainly do not appear to have very much information about the parts of the country from which the people come and no information at all, apparently, of the reasons for their leaving the country.
It is very important not merely that we should have the net figures of the loss of people—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I think he is trying to discuss the Amendment which was not selected. The debate is now confined to the Clause.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Surely it is in order to discuss the effects of Clause 1 on particular parts of the country, Sir Gordon. In Clause 1 we are approving of the expenditure of money to promote certain schemes of emigration. Surely it is in order to discuss whether it is desirable in certain cases to promote this and what effect it is likely to have.

9.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order to use the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to discuss an Amendment which has not been selected.

Mr. Lawson: I fail to understand, Sir Gordon, what can be discussed on this Question if I cannot discuss the purposes of the Clause which, I understand, are to stimulate, encourage and induce emigration from this country. I am referring to access to the facts about it.
If I may resume on this point about the part of the country with which I am specially concerned, namely, Scotland, may I say that all the information I have been able to obtain on the question of emigration or immigration in connection with Scotland relates to the net figures? The gross figures are also important, and I make the point to the Under-Secretary of State that we ought to have them. For example, we ought to know how many natives of Scotland are leaving that country.
I do not suggest that the people we get in return are not as good because I do not know, nobody knows. We all recognise that there are people coming to Scotland, not Scotsmen, and if there is an excessive movement of people out of a country then the character of that country will be in serious danger of being submerged, or perhaps so damaged or altered that the natives of the country will be seriously concerned.

Mr. Brian Harrison: To clear our minds, could the hon. Gentleman

distinguish between indigenous people and native people?

Mr. Lawson: The Chair is already concerned with this matter and I do not want to enter into that point. When we are dealing with Scottish people who were born several generations ago, that is good enough for me. Such people, who regard themselves as Scottish people, are indigenous as far as I am concerned.
I put the point, then, that it is important for us to keep in mind not only the net figures but also the gross figures of loss, since in this connection we can see a transformation of the culture of a country, and some of us might not want to see such a transformation. Some of us who may not be regarded as conservative are so conservative in our ideas that there are things we regard as good, and want to see maintained. If our population is swamped by other people, we are in serious danger of losing the things we value.
Turning briefly to the net figures, which are the only ones we can obtain, and again referring to the Second Reading debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) indicated how seriously perturbed many people of Scotland were that Scotland might be carrying much more than her due share in this emigration programme. In replying, the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to say many kind things about Scottish people. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he, at least, had no fear for the future of Scotland. May I say that some of us do not quite share his absence of fear? The hon. Gentleman said:
The fact is that the net loss of population through emigration in Scotland, according to the Registrar-General's Report, is still, I am glad to say, below the natural increase of population in recent years, although the figure is a marginal one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 632.1
The figure which the hon. Gentleman gave was 24,000. He was taking an average figure over a number of years as the estimated loss of people from Scotland. He gave the average natural increase of the Scottish population as 33,000 a year.
We ought to be concerned with whether or not Scotland is losing a disproportionately large part of its population. Perhaps I might say, as an aside, that I am not one of those who think that every


person who goes to Australia, New Zealand or Canada is a gain. That may be so, but I feel that the people who leave our country should, by and large, be regarded as losses. After a generation or two they cease to be Scottish and become Canadians, New Zealanders, or Australians.
As to whether or not Scotland is losing a disproportionately large part of its population, the increase in the Scottish population between 1939 and 1955, according to the Digest of Statistics, was 126,000 or 2·5 per cent. Over the same period the Northern Ireland population increased by 7·6 per cent. In England and Wales, taken together—the figure for Wales separately would be very different—the population increased by 7·2 per cent., and the total United Kingdom population increased by 6·7 per cent.
Had the Scottish population increased at the rate, not of Northern Ireland or England and Wales, but of the United Kingdom population, which is the lowest rate, we should have had an additional 210,000 people in our country today. It means that had our net loss been on the same basis as that for the other parts of the United Kingdom, we should have had nearly a quarter of a million more people in the country today. From a population of 5 million, we are sending out every year 24,000. Although that is the figure that we are given, I have serious doubts about it, but on that basis we find that the Scottish population is barely increasing at all.
Had I time—I gather that I have trespassed long enough—I could show that the process is going on in Scotland in many ways which I consider to be injurious, although I am not seeking to argue that we should try to stop Scotland from participating in emigration schemes. I say that we ought to have accurate information about what is happening. On the basis of that accurate information, we can then conduct these schemes in a way which will not induce Scottish people to leave their country in a much greater proportion than does the population of the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is a question not of trying to stop from emigrating those people who wish to emigrate, but of people being induced to emigrate. That is happening day

after day, especially in Scotland. I am concerned that we should know more about what is happening. If that is the job of the Under-Secretary, it has not been done up to the present and cannot be done without this information. We must have the fullest and most accurate information available.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I hope that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) will forgive me if I do not deal with his statistics about the United Kingdom. I want to mention a practical example of stimulating emigration which is being tried by a friend of mine who, paradoxically, emigrated from Australia to this country about thirty years ago: I hope that my hon. Friend will give his support to it. My friend's idea is to stimulate between a local authority in this country and a local authority in Western Australia—as the arrangements have not been completed, I will not reveal the names of the local authorities—a method by which Australia will take people from the housing waiting list of the local authority in this country and house them in Australia.
I hasten to add that this does not mean a subsidy from this country for the building of houses in Australia. They will be for owner-occupiers, and all that will be asked is possibly some facilities granted under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. My hon. Friend will be relieved to hear that it is not a matter of a subsidy. This is a very practical example of helping emigration. This friend of mine, Mr. William Mosey of Radlett, Hertfordshire, is prepared to start the scheme by buying a plot of land on which houses can be built. As there has been so much talk over the last fifty years about emigration and as, on the whole, it has led to comparatively little action—I am not blaming anybody for that, because this is a difficult and complicated subject—when one gets a practical example of someone trying to stimulate emigration in this way, it is worth putting on the record, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give his support to it.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I should like to follow the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). It is very relevant to ask ourselves what is


happening when we spend this money. Certainly in Scotland there is much public concern about what is going on. It is very difficult to get an accurate picture. I am one of those who like to see younger people displaying enterprise, initiative and the spirit of adventure. I am all for people going about the world and establishing themselves and doing the things they want to do when they are young. Certainly the older one gets, the less one is inclined to do them.
The position in Scotland is causing much concern. Attention has been drawn to it by a most authoritative source. Last May, in the Scottish Council of Industries monthly magazine, Scotland, there was a most thought-provoking article by the former Registrar-General for Scotland. It was headed:
Scotland's creeping paralysis.
I should like to give the Committee certain facts from that article. The writer deals with the question of emigration from Scotland, and the first point he makes is that during the first half of this century, for each person lost to England and Wales by migration Scotland lost 16 of her inhabitants, proportionately. That is a staggering figure.
He goes on to point out that this rate of emigration from Scotland seems to he maintained at a very high level. There is no evidence that it is diminishing in any respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) pointed out that it is very difficult to obtain the exact figures, but the picture certainly calls for some thought. The article points out that this emigration from Scotland is most seriously affecting what the writer calls the most vital cohort of the nation, namely, the age groups between 5 and 34 years of age.
It says that although the population has increased by about 250,000 since 1931 the number of people in Scotland between the ages of 5 and 34 was 250,000 fewer than it was in 1931, the reduction being almost equally divided between men and women. About 30,000 of this loss was due to deaths in the Second World War, but that does not diminish the still serious aspect that there were almost 250,000 fewer people in Scotland in those age groups, in spite of the increase in the population.
At the present time, when we are agreeing to spend this money, the rate

of emigration seems to be continuing, and it appears that over 90 per cent. of the emigrants from Scotland are under the age of 45. It is still the younger people who are leaving Scotland. The article says:
Not only do the younger age-groups provide most of the emigrants, but those are drawn from the most important industrial groups.
In other words, as we would expect—and as we have been trying to encourage to a great extent—the emigrants come from the engineering, building, contracting and transport industries, and the professional, managerial and clerical occupations. The articles continues:
Scotland is fast losing the trained young personnel which is so necessary for the future prosperity of her industrial system.
The writer ends with this note—and it is a point to remember when considering the Bill:
If the drift away from Scotland continues in the second half of the twentieth century at the same rate as was experienced in the last 50 years—and there is so far no evidence that it will not—Scotland will be a country of aged and infirm inhabitants, unsupported by an adequate industrial system, which requires youth and vigour for its operation.
The Under-Secretary of State laughs, but this is no laughing matter. This is not some propagandist writing a scare-mongering article in the weekend Press. This is a very responsible publication by the Scottish Council, and this is the former Registrar-General of Scotland, Mr. Kyd, writing it.

Mr. Alport: I was in no way laughing at the importance of the subject; indeed, I paid a very considerable tribute to the Scottish nation when we last discussed the matter. My feeling is that I could hardly accept the prospect of Scotland ever becoming the region of decadence which the writer has forecast for it. Knowing the vitality of the Scots, I do not believe that anything like that could happen.

Mr. Willis: We are quite prepared to accept that little tribute, but it does not detract from the seriousness of these figures and this position, about which there has been a great deal of public controversy.
It would not be in order now to discuss in detail what should be done about it, but it lends weight to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for


Motherwell that the position should be watched. The answer briefly is that we are not providing sufficient inducements in Scotland, and here the Government have a serious responsibility—I notice that a Scottish junior Minister has just crept into the Chamber very modestly, as usual. But the fault lies with the Government. We should have as much information as possible in order to determine where we are going; to decide whether we are doing what is right in Scotland; to aid us in fulfilling our obligations to the world, and to give our youth a chance.

Mr. W. T. Aitken (Bury St. Edmunds): I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but this question of information is an important and vital aspect of emigration. Those of us who take some interest in emigration will agree that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has done a service in raising this matter. The one thing we need is information.
One bit of information about Scotland I am able to give. I do not know whether it is of advantage to Scotland, but it is certainly of advantage to people who emigrate from Scotland. One need only look at the list of bank presidents, chairmen of universities, heads of insurance companies, and various other office holders in Canada or Australia to see that they nearly all have Scottish names. In Canada, if one has even a trace of a Scottish accent, one can dispense with a letter of recommendation or references.
There is no doubt that information of the kind described by the hon. Member is absolutely essential if we are to obtain any idea about how emigration is affected not only in this country, but in the receiving country. As a member of the Overseas Migration Board I can say that we encounter this difficulty continually. How much do we know? What kind of people emigrate? What makes them go? From what part of the country do they come, and what industries are affected? No one seems to have that information. My hon. Friend apprehends this very well. It was pointed out in some detail during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I wish to join with the

hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) in supporting the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for further information. We are in the dark about several things. I suggest that we need more information about the skills possessed by the people leaving this country. The most striking example given by my hon. Friend was that of the scientists, which shows how relevant is this information to present problems.
We require information also about those who return, and that has never been available. It seems to me to be an important element in estimating the success of the policy. We should try to understand what makes people come back from the country to which they had emigrated, and see whether that would help us to overcome some of the obstacles.
There is one further piece of rather more restricted information for which there is some justification in asking, and that is the distinction between people leaving Scotland for England and Wales and for overseas. That may not perhaps sound important to hon. Members who represent English, Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies, but it is a matter of considerable interest, and a quite legitimate and justifiable interest, to people in Scotland. I think that my hon. Friend is on very sound ground when he asks for a good deal more information about the people who are leaving this country, but I am not so sure that he is on such sound ground in respect of the remainder of his argument.
I am bound to say that I find a certain degree of difficulty in agreeing with a number of the things which he said, but I find even greater difficulty perhaps in relation to one of the things which the Under-Secretary of State said in his Second Reading speech in some remarks which have already been quoted by my hon. Friend:
Indeed, the Commonwealth Governments are well aware that we cannot allow them to make too extensive inroads upon the labour forces of any particular industry or of any particular area of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 545–6.]
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman meant by that. He said that we cannot allow them. What do we do if we want to stop them? We can perhaps refrain from giving what assistance we now give, but surely there is nothing we can do


that will actually prevent the Commonwealth Governments making such inroads, if they are successful in attracting our people?
Beyond that point, my main quarrel is with my hon. Friend. He is quite right in putting forward the view, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) supported him, that there is a certain amount of anxiety in Scotland about the apparently disproportionate number, judged by those migrating from England and Wales, of migrants from Scotland, but it does not seem to me that there is any widespread anxiety. There is a certain amount of perturbation expressed in restricted and limited quarters. One of them, curiously enough, is the authoritative quarter which has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, but that quarter is authoritative on figures, rather than on the policies, feelings and interests behind them.
I do not think, so far as I can understand the Scottish people, that there is any serious worry among Scottish people generally about the fact that so many of our people have emigrated. We always have emigrated in very large numbers, and we have always taken very great pride in the fact that we have done so and in what we have done after migrating.
I certainly cannot reconcile myself to the use of the word "lost" in this connection at all. I do not think that there is any point or any sense in talking about people who are —I am sorry to put it so strongly to my hon. Friend—"lost" to Scotland. In this case, surely, what is lost on the swings is gained on the roundabouts, and what is lost to Scotland is a gain to another part of the Commonwealth. I think that probably the loss is in most cases actually a gain to humanity in general. I think it is probably true to say that most emigrants who go from Scotland, for instance to Canada, work in Canada with a bigger proportion of capital and power behind them, so that they are able to produce more there than if they had remained in Scotland, and the gain, not only to the Commonwealth but to humanity in general, seems to lie with the encouragement of emigration from Scotland.
This arguing about a possible figure of 210,000 being added to the number of people in Scotland seems to me to be going into far too much detail about a matter that really is of no great significance. I am afraid that there is a certain amount of emotion in Scotland which one can only call the "Little Scotlander" attitude—the tendency to feel that Scotland should have a wall built round it and that everyone should stay inside. Though I am not accusing my hon. Friend of that, I am suggesting that some of the things that he has been saying are of a sort that might well encourage that kind of feeling, and I should not like the hon. Gentleman, the Committee, or indeed the country in general to feel that Scotland is in any great danger of taking that point of view as a nation and as a people.

Mr. John Rankin: Will my hon. Friend clarify his argument a little? One might accept the general trend. Is he leading us to believe that he will ignore these figures completely? Does not he think that they represent a tendency which would be injurious to Scotland?

Mr. MacPherson: I do not think that they represent a tendency which we have any justification for saying would be injurious to Scotland. We do not know exactly who are going. We have no possible way of making an economic analysis of the effects on Scotland or, what is more important, a wider analysis of the political and sociological type. I should say that if we were in a position to do that we should almost certainly find that the loss to Scotland was far more than counterbalanced by the gain elsewhere.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I wish to make two points, both of which concern the Overseas Migration Board. We are now saying goodbye, after five years, to the Empire Settlement Act of 1952. If precedent is followed we shall not have another general discussion on the subject of migration until 1962. In the interval, responsibility for forming general policy on migration falls upon the Overseas Migration Board.
My first point is this: does my hon. Friend consider that its terms of reference are wide enough to give it the opportunity


adequately to survey the whole field of migration and all the implications of a migration policy in terms of such things as strategy, Commonwealth relations, and economics, or does he consider, as I personally do, that it might be advisable to extend the terms of reference of the Board to enable it to carry out that proper survey?
The second point is a rather more delicate one. Does my hon. Friend intend to follow the example of his predecessors by taking the chair of this Board himself? Nobody could wonder for a moment about his suitability to take the chair of any board, especially this one, but he has one great disadvantage, which is that he himself is the Under-Secretary of State whom the Board is supposed to be advising. In other words, as chairman of the Board he would be advising himself. Would not it give him a great deal more freedom if he were not chairman of the Board—a great deal more freedom to reject its recommendations?

The Chairman: It is going rather wide of the Clause to discuss the chairman of the Board.

Mr. Nicolson: This is a one-Clause Bill. I could have made this speech upon Third Reading, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: Yes, but this is not Third Reading.

Mr. Nicolson: I was under the impression that this was a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: Yes, and on that Question one can talk only about what is in the Clause. The hon. Gentleman is going into details which are not in the Clause. If he does not want the money to be given, he can give his reasons for that, but I do not think that the question of the chairman of the Board can be brought in.

Mr. Nicolson: This is a one-Clause Bill, and when we are discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we are discussing the Bill. I submit that it is in order to raise any subject which concerns the operation of the Bill as a whole, as has been done by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee up to now.

The Chairman: Since I have been in the Chair the point has been made that Scotsmen do not want the money to be given, because it takes too many people away from my country.

Mr. Nicolson: As I cannot more directly relate my observations to Clause 1, I will resume my seat, Sir Charles. I think that I have made the two points which I wished to make.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I shall not take any part in the differences of opinion evinced by my hon. Friends, although I am more in agreement with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) than with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson).
Before I am ready to agree to the Clause I ask for clarification and assurance on a matter of the greatest importance not only to Scotland but to the United Kingdom. We are asked to allow money to be used to help emigrants from this country to go to certain parts of the Commonwealth. I am not opposed to that generally, but one matter perturbs me greatly. I have come across it in my own constituency and I know that it happens in other parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) gave figures of the age group that has emigrated from Scotland. I imagine that the figures will apply to the whole United Kingdom. They do not mean that only people of that age group want to migrate but that only people of that age group will benefit under the Clause. The Minister ought to give close attention to this matter. I may be able to illustrate the point by giving him an instance in my constituency.
Two young men in one family wanted to emigrate to New Zealand. It was a very close family, as many Scottish and, I expect, United Kingdom families are, and the young men did not want to go without their parents and younger brothers and sisters. When they made application to be considered under the assisted-passage scheme it was found that the young men could be assisted, but not the parents, who were over the qualifying age. The result was that first one son and then the second son went, while the mother and father were left at home with the school children. The family was


thereby broken up with great hardship not only to the two young men but to the rest of the family left at home. Government assistance is bad if it does not take into account the desires of the family as a whole.
I know that the parents and the younger children may get to New Zealand later, but only if the two sons are willing to sacrifice and save in order to send money home to pay their passage. The young people in that family may be willing to do that, but in some cases I think the sacrifice is too great. Even if they are willing to do it, they have to give certain guarantees that they will be responsible if it should turn out that their parents are not fit to take care of themselves when they arrive.
Any emigration scheme which allows that to happen is not, in my opinion, a good emigration scheme. It is not a good scheme from the point of view of the family and what the family can mean to every individual in it, the parents, the young people and the children. It is not a good thing from the point of view of the United Kingdom. Figures quoted for Scotland show clearly that if emigration from that part of the United Kingdom continues at its present rate, in Scotland we shall be left with a population which is very unbalanced, a population which has far too many old people and too few people between 20 and 40 years of age.
I ask the Minister tonight for an assurance that he will have this matter examined and ascertain whether it is possible, through this money which the British Government give, to ensure that there will not be this rigidly selective emigration from our country, but that everything possible will be done to ensure that families as a whole can emigrate and so give young people in the country of their choice all the benefits that good parents and a good home can give them.

Mr. Graham Page: I hesitate to intervene in a Scottish debate. I have never done so before, but I waited five hours during the Second Reading debate to get in the few words that I want to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
We are legislating, under Clause 1, to spend £1½ million a year on emigration. Since 1937 we have thought it worth voting that amount of money each year,

but we have never spent it. We have spent 12 per cent. of it on an average each year. I think I can go further and say that we have deliberately restricted expenditure to that 12 per cent. I entirely understand the difficulties of the receiving countries in assimilating a great number of immigrants into their economy.
That is well set out in the Report of the Overseas Migration Board, which shows how difficult it is to provide the services for incoming migrants. That Report states, in page 9:
Immigrants require housing, work-places, machines and materials to work with, consumer goods and services, etc.
I should hope that in spending the £1½ million a year we should have a policy which would take into account the fact that priority should be given to what I might call those who go to service the coming immigrants—the administrators, the doctors, the distributors of consumer goods and services.
If our policy of emigration were definitely connected with specific development schemes, if in Australia, Canada and New Zealand it were found that in a particular place it was right to build a reservoir, to erect an atomic energy station, to build a bridge, construct a harbour or whatever it might be, and that X number of men were needed to do that work, those men would require Y number of men in the neighbouring town to provide the services. We should recruit from this country the Y number of men and see that that was treated with priority, before going on to the second stage, the development project.
That is the only commonsense way of treating emigration, but as I understand there is no such commonsense policy at present. I understand the policy to be merely that a list goes from some Government Department to the immigration officers of the High Commissioners saying, "Please do not accept nurses," or "Please do not accept stenographers."
10.0 p.m.
I should like to ask the Minister: what is this system of lists from Government Departments? Do they come from the separate Government Departments direct to the High Commissioners, or do they pass through the Commonwealth Relations Office? Is there an organisation in the Commonwealth Relations Office


which keeps track of this sort of direction as to who shall and who shall not be accepted for emigration? If there is not, and if the organisation is not within the grasp of the Commonwealth Relations Office, then it certainly ought to be if we are to vote under the Bill £1½ million a year for emigration.
I should like to see a policy worked out for the planned expenditure of this money instead of it being spent, as it has been spent in the past, only upon assisted passages. The name itself condemns it. We do not want merely assisted passages; we want assisted settlement, assisted development and assisted expansion, and we shall get that only by a policy within the grasp of the Commonwealth Relations Office and not interfered with by other Government Departments.

Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Such a plea for a planned policy more often comes from this side of the Committee. It is not merely a question of planning the way the money is spent on emigrants sent, for instance, to Canada; it is a question of planning on a very much wider scale, taking the Commonwealth as a whole.
I do not think that anyone on this side of the Committee wishes to discourage emigration from Scotland, provided that it is for the right reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) warned some of us not to be labelled as little Scotlanders. I warn him that he must be careful not to become a junior imperialist.
The fact which concerns many of us on this side of the Committee is that the figures from the 1951 Census, as analysed by the man most capable of doing it—the ex-Registrar-General of Scotland—show the effect of emigration from Scotland over the fifty years from the beginning of the century to 1951 and show a net loss of population of 1,100,000 people. Considering the kind of people who have left Scotland, this is a very serious matter for the future of Scotland.
The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) should be studied and we should

consider what will happen if they continue. We have complacency here and even joy in the heart of one hon. Member opposite, but if these figures continue the future for Scotland is very serious indeed. Every young man who is driven to pack his bag and leave Scotland for Canada, Australia, or anywhere else, is a menace to the future of Scottish industry.
We must recognise that Scotsmen do not leave their country for trivial reasons. This is something which my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs forgot: the first great exodus from Scotland was caused by the Highland clearances, and in the last thirty years, certainly in the years between the wars, it was the ravages of unemployment which drove the people away. I am sorry to tell the Government that today the queues of people inquiring about emigration in Glasgow, Edinburgh and the other cities of Scotland are greater than they have been for many years. This is something that should give the Government cause for thought.
I expected an intervention tonight by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. In fact I had hoped that the new link-up between the Colonial Office and the new Secretary of State for Scotland, who has had charge of certain affairs there, might have resulted in his gracing our debate today and giving us the benefit of his feelings on this matter. That is the reason why I stressed at the beginning of my remarks that I did not want to discourage emigration, provided it was for good reasons—that restlessness which has taken all over the world, quite apart from economic reasons, Scotsmen who have done considerable service for our Commonwealth and other countries where they have landed.
We see again today the worst kind of reasons which are driving the people of Scotland to accept the inducements which will be given under this Clause. It may well be that because of economic circumstances that we shall spend more than the £186,000 that we spent last year. We may touch the £1½ million mark in order to cope with the rush of people who want to emigrate. I hope that when the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland intervenes, he will tell us exactly how the Scottish Office is concerned about this continual drain of the best of our people from Scotland, who are so urgently needed there.
It is all very well to say that it is a gain for the places to which they go, but when we see the depopulation in the Highlands of Scotland today and the frantic efforts of the Scottish Office in voting money to try to get people back or to stay in the crofting areas, it is fantastic to see these divergent policies of the Government. They should make up their minds to do what they can to ensure that people will have freedom of choice in this matter of whether they are going to stay in Scotland or emigrate, and that the economic future of Scotland will be as assured as that of Canada, so that people can decide on some other basis than that of economic necessity.

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the debate on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," has clearly shown that we need a migration policy. My hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies who have spoken have shown quite clearly that there is a disproportionately large number of migrants from Scotland. The Overseas Migration Board, which has been looking at this matter, has not been able to give us statistics as reliable as we would wish, but there is no reason to doubt that Scottish representatives have shown clearly that it is a mater that ought to be looked at more fully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to the fact that we ought to encourage migration in family units. That idea was expressed before. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) suggest that we might do it on a family basis through the medium of the local authorities taking those people off their housing lists. That is very revealing because we on this side of the Committee have been saying that the Rent Bill, far from solving the housing problem, will create a greater one, and the hon. Gentleman has given us evidence to support that.
Already the Government have it in their power to do something about this. If the hon. Gentleman will look back on the records he will see that there was a scheme, when the Government were interested in developing migration, the 3,000 families scheme of people who went to Canada. I wonder whether that cannot be looked at again in order that the family basis in underdeveloped territories

occupied by the Crown may be further exploited, by families being sent as units to develop those territories or unoccupied private land suitable for farming. When we talk about the spirit of adventure, that is the kind of opportunity that we want to create. I recommend that to the Under-Secretary.
I could say more about this but we are anxious to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, particularly in reply to those hon. Members who represent constituencies north of the Border. I hope that he will be in a position to say that there will be more consideration given to this matter and a decided policy put forward. I am interested to know that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) has joined me in suggesting that the Overseas Migration Board needs greater power. I am glad to have made a convert of him, and I make that suggestion to the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Alport: Perhaps I may now reply to the many interesting points that have been raised in this debate. First, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) will send in details of the scheme to which he referred, because I am sure that that would be of great interest, not only to my Department but to the Overseas Migration Board. Again, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) that the points which he has raised will be considered.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was basing his remarks in some degree upon a recent article in the Manchester Guardian, but that article does not entirely represent the present practice. It is true that, from time to time, the Ministry of Labour—which is naturally the Department concerned with this information—informs the High Commissioners' offices of those skills, trades and industries which we feel should not be over-recruited at any particular time. I understand that it is not true that there is at present any embargo on the recruitment of stenographers to go overseas.
Admittedly this is not a cut-and-dried, hard-and-fast system, but it is a very effective one and, if I may say so, a very British system. It means that the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister


of Labour and the High Commissioners' offices work closely together to ensure that, whilst there is as much elasticity as possible in the appeal to migrants from this country, there is, at the same time, sufficient control to ensure that the interests of any area or industry are not unduly hampered.
I feel some diffidence in the responsibility which falls to me to speak up for Scotland, because I feel that many of the remarks made about the present and future position of that great country do less than justice to the Scottish tradition, and to the contribution which Scotsmen have made over many centuries when the wanderlust has taken them to civilisations overseas. From the days of the Darien Company onwards there has always been a strong interest in Scotland in overseas expansion in its various forms.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) is one which I accept as being extremely important. We are most concerned to ensure that the information available upon which to base an approach to migration policy is as full as circumstances permit, but we must, I think, keep a sense of proportion. As I said in the Second Reading debate, and as I hope I may now say again, we do not want to clutter up the routine of arrival in and departure from this country with unnecessary questionnaires and red tape, and if we can find means of achieving the sort of information which we want, particularly the type of sociological information which was referred to, we should take steps to that end.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman get the Chancellor of the Duchy to do this job as well as his other?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Alport: We shall take every step to see that knowledge of this important subject is improved. I can also give an undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the interests of Scotland in this matter will be carefully borne in mind.
May I say to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison)

that the scheme to which she referred was a New Zealand Government scheme and not a United Kingdom scheme. The conditions under which that scheme operates are laid down by the New Zealand Government, and we are not able, apart from putting our views forward, of course, to decide or govern the conditions which may concern it. I thought, and I am sure the Committee did, that the point made by the hon. Lady was an extremely human and interesting one, and, in so far as it concerns schemes in which we are associated with any Commonwealth Government, we shall certainly pay attention to the advice and the views which she expressed.
To turn now to the problems of Scotland, I do not think that the fears which have been expressed are fully justified. The amount of emigration from this country which is accountable to Scotland is about 12 per cent., and on a basis of population that is not far out. From the point of view of assisted passages, it is 12 per cent. of the breadwinners, and, on average, every breadwinner will take with him two dependants. Therefore, there is at any rate a cross-section by sexes and by ages, although I accept the point made earlier that there may be, and is sometimes, a discrepancy between those under 45 years of age and those over that age. On Second Reading I gave some statistics with regard to the age groups both in respect of Australia and Canada.

Mr. Lawson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. How can he be so accurate when it is admitted that we are so vague and so ill-informed on the question of the migration of people from and to this country?

Mr. Alport: I hope I made it clear that I was referring to assisted passages. The assisted passage scheme to Australia plays a very big part and enables us to get information which I do not say reflects completely the whole field of migration, but which, at any rate, gives us a pretty good indication of how migration is spread over the various sections.
It is not true that we do not have information about certain important aspects of this matter. For instance, we have information about those who are returning to this country from Commonwealth countries. That information is


required and processed by the Board of Trade. Although it is inclined to be considerably post-dated, at the same time it gives us an indication over a period of what sort of people are coming back to this country from Commonwealth territories.

Mr. A. Woodburn: On the matter of the statistics about assisted passages, can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication whether the importing authorities select skilled men, with the result that Scotland is left with an unbalance of skilled men, because that is one of our problems?

Mr. Alport: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point and, indeed, it is a point that has been made elsewhere. Our general information is that although, naturally, in many circumstances the recruiting country is anxious to bring over skilled migrants, it does not by any means follow that every emigrant who goes from this country is skilled, or indeed that they are making what, from our point of view, are unhealthy inroads into the skilled and technical resources of this country.
The real reason, so far as we can estimate at the present time, why there has been increased concern over this point is that with the increase in migration generally, which has undoubtedly taken place in recent months, a larger number of skilled men have gone with the general body of migrants. But we have no indication at present that the proportion of skilled men to unskilled men and to dependants is any different from what it was in the earlier days when the total volume of migration was less.
I have tried to reassure the Scottish Members who have spoken that I do not believe the present process provides any long-term danger to Scottish prosperity or to the future of Scotland. I am sure they will be the first to recognise that, as we have said earlier, irrespective of any economic conditions that may in any specific era exist in Scotland, migration from that country is a characteristic of the Scottish race.
I say this also to those hon. Members. Supposing things were getting out of balance, would they propose to this House that Scotland should be treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom? Should we apply restrictions to the movements of our Scottish friends

which we would not apply to the English or Welsh or anyone else? I am certain that is not their intention. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why suggest it"?] Because that was the logical conclusion from the arguments put forward.
In these circumstances I believe that hon. Members have not entirely followed the direct interests of Scotland in this matter. I speak as one who is half Scots. I do not think it is right to portray Scotland as being unable or unlikely in the future to play her real part in the contribution which this country is making, through migration, to the development of the great Commonwealth, and to those countries with which Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom have had long associations of population, race and culture.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he deal with this point? He mentioned the figure of 12 per cent. of the assisted passages scheme. Were those assisted passages to Australia? Or were they to Canada, which is mainly the place that is causing concern to Scotland?

Mr. Alport: To Australia. It is true, however, and I made the point during the Second Reading debate, that a great deal of the movement of population is between Scotland and Canada. The fact is, however, that there is no reason to suppose that the proportion of overall migration is different, according to the figures available at present. In fact we believe it to be the same figure of 12 per cent. so far as the Scottish contribution is concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(SHORT TITLE AND CITATION.)

Mr. Bottomley: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "Empire" and insert "Commonwealth."
I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that we ought to have this Amendment made. I said during the Second Reading debate that the term "Empire" was offensive to me, and I believe it will be offensive to other people who look at its historic derivation. The word "Empire" came from the system of the feudal lords and implied to direct, to rule. It cannot be denied that we


carried that outlook overseas. In fact, the Empire was something which we acquired by conquest, and many of the indigenous peoples still believe that it means that power is given over them, that we command, that we exercise authority.
We know that that is not so, and we know also that the word "Dominion" applies equally to those of us who are in the United Kingdom as to those in other parts of the Commonwealth. When the Under-Secretary of State said last Friday that we must think in terms not only of groups within the Commonwealth but of the Commonwealth as a whole, he really gave me the answer that I want, namely, that the Title of the Bill should be changed.
Although the hon. Gentleman said that many people reverence and value the traditional title of "Empire," I think he would find, if a democratic decision were taken, that those who hold such a view were in the minority. The hon. Gentleman should accept this Amendment on the basis that, being a Commonwealth, we are united by good will and co-operation, not by force. Therefore, I ask him to accept the Amendment.

Major Patrick Wall: I support the plea made by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). It is surely the desire of both political parties to bring Colonial Dependencies to the state of being self-governing members of the Commonwealth. The Bill is designed to help forward that objective through emigration, and the Measure is brought forward by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
I feel no shame about the word "Empire," but it is true to say that the Asiatics and the forthcoming African Dominions rather resent it. We must face the fact that soon we shall have more non-European members of the Commonwealth than European, but I see nothing to fear in that. The Commonwealth must expand, and it must obviously expand in that direction. I urge my hon. Friend to accept the Amendment, for it advances the Bill into the future rather than leaves it in the past.

Mr. B. Harrison: I would also urge my hon. Friend to accept the Amendment. It is said that a rose by any other name smells as sweet, but the "Empire" rose has, unfortunately, reached a rather full-blown state and is not as sweet as it was. We ought to bring the Measure up to date in this manner. The alteration does not mean so much in this country but it means a tremendous amount overseas.

Mr. Donald Wade: I, also, support the Amendment. The word "Commonwealth" is symbolical. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Alport: As to the problem raised by this point, although a change might be made, it will not remove the fact that the Measure is a re-enactment of a series of Acts which have existed for 37 years and have gone by the old and honoured name of the "Empire Settlement Acts." The change will not make any difference to the form of the Measure. It will have no effect upon whether or not a single person goes overseas from this country. It is merely a matter of changing a form, but I and my noble Friend recognise that these forms are of the greatest importance in dealing with Commonwealth relations.
I confess that I should have preferred to make the change when, as might be the case in five years' time, we were re-shaping the Measure rather than reenacting the terms of an old one. However, in the circumstances, and having regard to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), my hon. Friends and the representative of the Liberal Party, I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 17, after "the" insert "Commonwealth and".—[Mr. Bottomley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments (changed to "Commonwealth Settlement Bill); as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

NEW STREETS ACT, 1951 (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the New Streets Act, 1951, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the first-mentioned Act in the sums payable under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948. or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956. out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Henry Brooke and Mr. Airey Neave discharged from the Committee; and Mr. Freeth and Mr. J. Enoch Powell added.—[Mr. Oakshott]

Orders of the Day — KENYA (DETAINEES' FRANCHISE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.32 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: Last Wednesday, for a short period during Question Time, we discussed a matter which is of very great importance to the people of Kenya, namely, the manner in which they should be allowed to exercise their votes at the forthcoming elections. We have just been discussing various matters connected with the Commonwealth and I make no apology for discussing this particular Commonwealth matter tonight. It is strictly limited to one subject, the regulations governing the franchise in Kenya at the next elections.
Many of us were very disturbed at the line taken by the Under-Secretary during Question Time last Wednesday. I am not really certain what he meant and I want him to tell us tonight. In dealing with the regulations I asked him:
Does he think that it is in accordance with democratic principles, or is he in this case abrogating all democratic principles?
He replied:
No. I am saying that this is in the best interests of all concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 167.]
That answer was not very clear.
I believe that it is not in the best interests of the people of Kenya that so many should be deprived of the franchise. I want to quote the regulations, which should appear in HANSARD, because they are very serious. They are regulations the like of which I have never heard in any country for whose government Great Britain is responsible.
They are:
No African shall be included in the register for any electoral area who … is the subject of a restriction order made under the Deportation (Immigrant British Subjects) Ordinance, 1949, or is or has been the subject of a detention order made under the Emergency Regulations, 1952.
They continue:
Provided that a Provincial Commissioner may in any particular case remove such disqualification in respect of an African who has been, but is no longer, detained by virtue of a detention order made as aforesaid, being the Provincial Commissioner of the province in which such African normally resides.


What does this mean? It means that people who have been detained without any trial whatever—simply because they are suspected persons, and on no other ground at all—are to be deprived of the vote. On 30th November last year there were 32,000 detainees. They were not convicted criminals, yet they are deprived of the vote. On what grounds is this so?
It becomes a far more serious matter when we look at the question of the detainees who have been released. These people have been released because they are no longer suspect, yet they are still deprived of their vote unless the Provincial Commissioner removes the disqualification. There is no compulsion upon him to do so. If he feels that he does not want to remove it they remain disqualified. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs, to leave it to the will of an official to say whether certain people may or may not have the right to express their views at an election. That includes even the people who have been released after an investigation by the Advisory Committee who should be presumed, at any rate prima facie, to be guiltless, and no longer suspect.
I come now to Section 19 of the Ordinance, which is even more extraordinary. It reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, no person being a member of the Kikuyu, Embu or Meru tribe shall be eligible to he registered as a voter unless the district commissioner of the district in which such person normally resides certifies in writing that such person, on account of his loyal and active support of the Government in the Emergency, may be so registered and the grant or refusal of any certificate under this sub-section shall lie in the absolute discretion of the district commissioner.
(2) A district commissioner, who has granted a certificate in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, may, on account of disloyalty, mistake as to identity or otherwise, or misrepresentation, or for other good and sufficient cause, at any time cancel in writing such certificate and thereafter the person to whom such certificate was granted shall not be registered as a voter or, if such person has already been so registered, the name of such person shall be deleted from the register.
(3) Neither the grant nor the refusal nor the cancellation of any certificate under this section shall be called in question in any court or proceedings whatsoever.
Words fail me to describe what I think of an Ordinance which not only gives to an official the power to disqualify

thousands of people belonging to certain tribes from the franchise but, at the same time, prevents the courts from interfering in any way with the decision of the official. If this had happened in England we should have heard a great deal about it. This House would have been full at this moment or, more probably, there would have been a call for an Adjournment debate upon a matter of urgent public importance, and a debate would have taken place in the middle of the afternoon. But because this happens in Kenya not quite so many hon. Members are interested as there would otherwise be.
It may be said that there is a crisis in Kenya, and that during a crisis there need be less respect for the ordinary procedure of the courts than there would otherwise be. There is certainly a crisis there, but that is no justification for depriving a quarter of the population of a vote unless the official concerned says that it may vote.
I do not think that we often feel that we are behind the Poles in matters of democracy, but Mr. Gomulka has recently had an election in Poland, and I do not think that he had any test such as this. He certainly had a far graver crisis, because he had Russian guns and tanks on his frontiers and he was in great danger—yet he carried out that election in a more democratic manner, apparently, than is likely to be the case in the elections in Kenya, according to this Ordinance.
It is not only a question of people being deprived of the franchise because they are disloyal; they have actually to be actively loyal. What would happen in this country were there such a rule? It would mean that well-known leaders of the Communist Party in this country would have to prove that they were actively loyal to this country, and they would obviously find that exceedingly difficult to prove. If they could not prove it, neither they nor any of their followers would have a vote; yet we allow them to vote here and we deprive of a vote all these people in Kenya who have not passed this loyalty test.
We are supposed to be leaders of democracy. We are supposed to be an example to these countries which are hesitating whether they shall join the democratic camp or the Communist camp. I do not believe that this is the kind of


way in which we should give them a lead. If we give a lead in this direction it is likely that they may have second thoughts about joining the democratic camp and may join the Communist camp instead.
I ask the Under-Secretary to repeal this wrong-headed and stupid Ordinance, which is completely out of keeping with the whole British way of life and with all that this House stands for.

10.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have only very recently been called upon to concern myself officially with the matters which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has been discussing this evening. Although I have, ever since I entered this House, taken a deep interest in colonial matters, I have approached my study of the origins and the background of this legislation which the right hon. Gentleman has called in question with what I hope is a fresh and unprejudiced mind.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will expect me to go into the reasons why, in the conditions of emergency in Kenya, where the whole structure of government and the orderly life of people of all races was threatened by a resurgence of barbarism—why it was necessary, in those conditions, to detain certain people in the public interest. I believe that that was necessary, just as I believe that the Government of Kenya have clone, and are doing, their utmost to redeem those who have been duped by Mau Mau and return them to play a useful part in a peaceful society.
Nor do I believe—although I may be wrong in this—that the right hon. Gentleman seriously holds the view that in the conditions in Kenya today it is intolerable, because it is not consonant with our democratic principles, to make the right to vote, in these first African elections on an individual franchise, something to be earned rather than something automatically granted to all adult Africans.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, except in a very narrow coastal belt, Western European influences in East Africa have been at work for little over half a century as contrasted with the long evolution of our own institutions in this country or, indeed, the

centuries of contact and the spread of education and experience in certain other Colonial Territories.
We are here initiating an important experiment in the development of representative institutions. The African in Kenya, as Mau Mau itself demonstrated, has yet to emerge completely from his tribal past. He is only beginning, as far as the mass of the people are concerned, to think and act as an individual and not as a pliable unit in a larger group.
The passage from collective responsibility to individual judgment cannot be brusque without causing serious strains. In the electoral field it can lead very easily to demagogy and indeed to corruption. In Kenya, the transition has been deliberately made from the submission of a panel of names by district councils, acting as sounding boards of local opinion, in 1948, to the creation in 1952 of electoral colleges of representative men voting by secret ballot. Now, under the scheme worked out by Mr. Coutts, individual Africans are to vote directly for the first time by secret ballot for one candidate or another in accordance with their individual judgment of the policies put forward by those candidates.
It seems to me right and well suited to the conditions in Kenya that on this occasion the franchise should be limited to those who can reasonably be expected to be capable of exercising an individual judgment and that their claims to do so should be based on education, demonstrated capacity to attain an individual position of authority or material success, experience of responsibility of various kinds and similar criteria.
The point I wish to make is that by introducing this system into Kenya the Government have not deprived anyone of the right to vote; its introduction simply extends the right—and, indeed, that duty—to those best fitted to exercise it.

Mr. Dugdale: I am not disputing the whole basis of the franchise—that is quite another question—but will the hon. Gentleman limit himself exclusively to those people who come under this particular section?

Mr. Profumo: I was coming to that, but I thought it wise to ask the right hon. Member if he would share my view, first, that a qualitative franchise for Africans in Kenya today is the right


system to introduce at the present time. We have to settle that before we get down to the basic problem and I think the right hon. Member has agreed that he will accept that fact—

Mr. Dugdale: No; I said that I did not want to discuss that tonight.

Mr. Profumo: If the right hon. Member will allow me to make this point—my argument does to some extent depend upon it—though even if the conception of a qualitative franchise is accepted I do concede that there could be considerable scope for debate on the precise qualifications to be adopted at this stage.
I have looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate on Kenya on 6th June when although this subject was touched on briefly by several hon. Members it was never seriously maintained that Mr. Coutts's proposals were at variance in any fundamental respect with the views of the majority of the African witnesses he had heard.
As we have not much time, however, I will go straight to the aspects of the system specially raised by the right hon. Member. In the discussions which Mr. Coutts had all over the country particular stress was laid by those Africans who had stood firm against the onslaught of Mau Mau that only those who were loyal should be permitted to qualify to vote in the forthcoming elections and I think it would be difficult to quarrel with that contention. The Kikuyu spokesman, Mr. Mathu, observed in his speech in the Legislative Council on this Bill, that he agreed with the provisions in it which applied particularly to K.E.M. tribes.
It is, admittedly, very difficult to devise any scientific test of loyalty or any method of determining such a qualification judicially. The Kenya Government considered that to insist that no would-be voter had ever taken an oath—as the Africans suggested—would be too restrictive, since many took an oath under overwhelming compulsion and some of those originally swept into Mau Mau had demonstrated their renunciation of it by active loyalty to the Government.
It was, therefore, decided that active support to the Crown during the emergency should be the test of fitness to qualify for registration for this first elec-

tion for the Kikuyu, Embu and Meru. I think it follows quite logically that those detained in the interest of preserving public order should also fail to qualify. Powers of detention were exercised to curb the power for evil of those who were believed to have adopted the aims and methods of Mau Mau even though the information against them came from witnesses, such as accomplices or those afraid to testify in court, whose evidence could not sustain a judicial charge against them.
If persons were detained who believed they were wrongly detained they had—and exercised—the right of appeal to the Advisory Committee, which considered most carefully whether their detention was necessary in the interests of public order. This Committee has already heard about 2,400 appeals and has recommended more than 1,000 detainees for release. Many thousands have been redeemed through the rehabilitation process and are now at liberty with the opportunity to work their way back to full acceptance by their communities—and I want to stress that very much. Many thousands more are on their way through this process now, but I believe, together with the loyal Kikuyu they must be required to show by their conduct over a period that they have fully abjured their attachment to Mau Mau. Thus, all ex-detainees have been required to obtain clearance certificates and, in fact, no ex-detainee has applied for removal of such disqualification.
The right hon. Gentleman finished his speech by asking whether I would take some action to repeal this law. With all respect to him, this is an academic point, since now the registration of voters has finished and, therefore, it would not be any good; it is too late to do anything about it. But I wish to support the action which has been taken. The right hon. Gentleman also talked about a quarter of the population being deprived of their vote because of these regulations. I think we should try—

Mr. Dugdale: I said that a quarter were liable to be deprived of it. How many are actually deprived, I do not know.

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry. I did not mean to be inaccurate. What the right hon. Gentleman says is much better.
We should try to see whether we can get this into its perspective. We cannot assume that anything like all those who are or have been detained would otherwise have qualified for registration or would have wished to register. In the Central Province, for example, the proportion of registered voters to the total adult population is 7·4 per cent. It seems reasonable to assume that no larger a proportion of the detainees would, if allowed to do so, have qualified for registration or have wished to register, and on this basis it is fair to say that no more than 5,000 or 6,000 people are disqualified from voting because they have been detainees.
Since, as I have maintained, the loyalty test could not be made susceptible of application by a court of law, it is surely best that this discretion should be exercised by the Governor's representatives. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think of the Provincial Administration, it really is regarded by the great majority of law-abiding Africans as an impartial and sympathetic authority.
Africans would prefer the decision to rest with such an authority rather than with a tribunal of the sort proposed by Mr. Coutts.
In conclusion, I would like to say this: in the immediate aftermath of the agony which Kenya has suffered under the brutal scourge of Mau Mau I am satisfied that these disqualifications are right and fully justified. As the situation is restored, and as the detainees are reabsorbed in the life of the country, a new situation will, I believe, be established.
Then we can hope, with the restoration of confidence, that in the review which has been promised of these arrangements before the next elections, a further step can be taken in bringing back those affected by Mau Mau into fuller participation in the life and affairs of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.